











































Book_V\li? 5.. 

1 H“1 


GPU 











ESSAYS 


ON SOME OF THE 

DANGERS TO CHRISTIAN FAITH 


WHICH MAY ARISE FROM 

THE TEACHING OR THE CONDUCT OF ITS 
PROFESSORS : 

TO WHICH ARE SUBJOINED 

THREE DISCOURSES 

DELIVERED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. 


BY 

RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. 

*> 

ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 


O v SedotKci tov tKti) 7ro\sfiov, wg rr\v tvdov fjuxxv v ‘ ^ 7r£ * Kai plZ<*> orav rj 
KaXdg t]p/io<Tfjievi] ry yy, ovdev tti’ktitcu <xtt6 tu>v avkfuov' av be avn) 
oa\ivr]Tai t <r KtoXrjKog diarpu>yovTog avTrjv evboQev, Kai pybevog evoxXovvrog 
Trsatirai. Me^pt rivog biarpibyop-ev rrjg tKKXtjaiag rr)v pi£ay, trKOjXrjKutv 
biKrjv ; Chrysostom. Horn, in 2 Cor. xvii. 

“ I dread not so much the war without, as the contest within. A root when 
well fixed in the earth will not be harmed by the winds; but if it be made 
unstable itself by a worm gnawing it from within, it will fall even though 
nothing assault it. How long shall we, like a worm, gnaw through the root 
of the Church?” 


SECOND EDITION. 


LONDON: 

JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND. 


MDCCC XLVII. 

0 

* > 





PREFACE. 


A considerable part of this volume 
consists of the substance of several tracts 
which—at the request of the parties to 
whom they had been respectively addressed 
—were published from time to time in 
the form of pamphlets. A similar request 
having been made in respect of some 
others also, hitherto unpublished, it was 
thought advisable to collect and arrange 
the whole in a volume, after making such 
additions and other alterations as seemed 
requisite. 

The work might perhaps have been im¬ 
proved by developing more fully some 
topics which have been slightly touched 

a 2 




IV 


PREFACE. 


on,—by throwing together, into one or 
more distinct treatises, some of the short 
detached dissertations, on particular points, 
which have been appended in the form of 
notes,—and by more completely changing 
the style, which was originally adopted with 
a view to oral delivery. For any imper¬ 
fections of this kind that may be observed, 
I hope the reader will accept as an apology, 
the pressure of avocations which I could 
not expect to see materially diminished. 

For hasty and crude judgments indeed, — 
for unsound arguments—or for obscurity 
of language—no excuse, I am aware, ought 
to be (in respect of a published work) 
accepted, or offered: but such defects as 
these—as far, at least, as my endeavours 
could guard against them — will not, I 
trust, be found. I would not offer my 
readers the affront of bringing before them 
any work,—however hastily prepared for 
the press ,—which had not been, both in 
matter and in expression, subjected to 
mature reflection and careful revision. 


PREFACE. 


If, in the choice of a subject, I had 
aimed at obtaining the largest possible 
share of public favour, I might have fixed 
on others more likely to be generally ac¬ 
ceptable than those principally treated of 
in the following pages. For as the unbe¬ 
liever is of course disposed to attribute to 
the intrinsic character of Christianity—to 
some valid objections which he supposes 
to lie against the religion itself — any 
disgust or hostility towards it that may 
prevail, so, Christians generally may be 
expected to be more inclined to look for 
the cause of this in the perversity of adver¬ 
saries than in any injudicious conduct of 
its professors: and again, the Christians 
who belong to each denomination or 
religious party, are naturally more disposed 
to look to the faults of another party than 
of their own. 

But thinking, as I do, that parties the 
most opposed to each other have, in dif¬ 
ferent ways, contributed to bring danger 


VI 


PREFACE. 


and discredit to the Faith, I should have 
felt it to be a sacrifice of duty if I had, 
for the sake of conciliating one class, con¬ 
fined my attention to the faults of another, 
and had thus left unnoticed some portion 
of the errors which appear to me to be, in 
the present day, the most prevalent and 
the most important. It is best that both 
Scylla and Charybdis should be laid down 
in the same chart. 

Although however it would have been 
unjustifiable to court, at the expense of 
sincerity, the favour of any class of men, I 
have endeavoured to avoid giving unneces¬ 
sary offence to any : and though continuing 
to keep aloof from every party, I have 
made it my object to do justice to each, so 
far as I could conscientiously concur in 
their views ; never aiming to appear, any 
more than to be, singular in my opinions. 
This declaration—superfluous, I trust, to 
those acquainted with my former works— 
I have been induced to make, in conse- 


PREFACE. 


vii 

quence of a tendency prevailing among 
some who are themselves partizans, to re¬ 
gard as belonging to a party all who have 
any points of agreement , a in opinion or in 
practice ; and consequently to assume that 
any one who keeps clear of all religious 
parties, is to be understood (if not indif¬ 
ferent to religion altogether) as standing 
alone in his religious views : or as wavering 
and “ halting between two opinions or 
waiting—like the Bat in the Fable—to 
join whichever party prevails. As natu¬ 
ralists are accustomed to “ establish” (as 
their expression is) a “ Genus or Order” 
of animals, on the ground of certain points 
of resemblance , without meaning to imply 
that the animals thus grouped are accus¬ 
tomed to congregate and herd together, so, 
the persons I am speaking of establish— 
as it may be called—parties ; classing men 
together in supposed parties, on the ground 
of some coincidence of opinion; and keep¬ 
ing out of sight—as unimportant, or as 

B See Eden’s Theological Dictionary, Article “ Disciples.” 


Vlll 


PREFACE. 


a thing to be taken for granted—that 
mutual bond , and cooperation towards com¬ 
mon objects* which are essential to the 
idea of a party in the received sense of 
the w r ord. According to such a view, a 
party might conceivably consist entirely 
of men ignorant of the opinions, and even 
of the existence, of each other. 

But I must protest against such a use 
of language, as both unwarranted,—being 
at variance with established usage,—and 
mischievous, as representing that there is 
only the alternative of two great evils; 
that of joining a religious party , and that 
of aiming at singularity , and rejecting 
every opinion that is held by any one else. 

In fact, so far is it from being true that 
the adoption by several persons, of the 
same views, on sincere conviction, and not 
in deference to one another’s authority, 
constitutes them a party, that, on the 

b See Essay II. of this vol. § 3. pp. 93, 94. 


PREFACE. 


IX 


contrary, party-spirit is the most decidedly 
and strongly shown in respect of those 
points wherein men do not coincide in 
their judgments, but make mutual sacri¬ 
fices of their respective opinions; just as 
the Roman Triumvirs sacrificed, each, 
some of his own friends to the joint Pro¬ 
scription. 

Far as I am however from any wish to 
oppose or to differ from others, and accus¬ 
tomed to look, in the first instance, rather 
for points of agreement than of disagree¬ 
ment, I am sensible that no one who finds 
himself obliged to express disapprobation 
of any prevailing doctrines, practices, or 
modes of expression, can hope to escape,— 
even by “ speaking the truth in love”—a 
certain degree of disfavour. And more 
censure may be anticipated from those— 
if there should be any such—whose inward 
conviction is not strong, of the truth of 
the principles, and the soundness of the 
arguments, which they think it right, 


X 


PREFACE. 


for the supposed benefit of the mul¬ 
titude, to maintain. Men who are sin¬ 
cerely and firmly convinced of what they 
maintain, are often found to perceive no 
force in any arguments on the opposite 
side, and to be so confident in the 
strength of their position, as to feel little 
or no resentment against assailants ; c while 
those who do feel the force of a reason, 
when they are resolved against admitting 
the conclusion, are in general proportion- 
ably displeased at its being urged. 

If any of those who are accustomed to 
use language like that which I have felt 
myself bound to censure as tending to en¬ 
courage wrong and dangerous notions,—if 
there be any of these who sincerely dis¬ 
claim those notions, I can most truly say 
that I shall always hear with the highest 
satisfaction such a disclaimer; and that I 
trust they also, if ingenuously aiming at the 

c ’E-n-eiSav Si a<poSpa otWrni . . . . ov <ppovri£ov(Tt .— Arist. 
Rhet. book ii. c. 2. 


PREFACE. 


XI 


inculcation of truth, will be, on the whole, 
not displeased, but the contrary, at having 
an opportunity of explaining their real 
meaning, and of guarding against the erro¬ 
neous conclusions which their expressions 
have been found to favour. 

It was when this volume was nearly 
through the press, that Professor Powell’s 
“ Tradition unveiled”—a work which ap¬ 
pears to me to display in a high degree his 
usual ability and candour—first came into 
my hands. My reason for here mentioning 
it, is, that as the author has treated of 
several of the points which have been also 
noticed in the following pages, I have 
thought it right to apprise the reader, that 
any coincidence or discrepancy between us, 
as to any of those points, is purely acci¬ 
dental, as far as relates to the two works 
in question; neither of which was known 
to the author of the other. 




















-r * 4* - 



































' 












CONTENTS. 


ESSAY I. 

ON THE DANGERS ARISING FROM CERTAIN INJU¬ 
DICIOUS MODES OF PREACHING. 

PAGE 


§ 1. Causes of aversion to Christianity referable to 
two classes : some are averse to it from its real 
character, p. 5 ; some from misapprehension of 

it.8 

§ 2. Apparently immoral tendency of some views of 

Christianity.10 

§ 3. Misapprehension of some passages of Scripture . 15 

§ 4. Language of Apostles explained.24 

§ 5. Erroneous description of Christian humility . . 36 

§ 6. Not consisting in general confessions .... 39 

§ 7. Or in any confession not perfectly sincere ... 53 

§ 8. Or unaccompanied with efforts to amend ... 56 

Note.64 







XIV 


CONTENTS. 


ESSAY II. 

ON THE DANGERS ARISING FROM NEGLECT OF 
INSTRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, AND 
FROM PARTY-SPIRIT AMONG CHRISTIANS. 

PAQH 

§ 1. General remarks on the existing causes of hostility 

to the Christian religion.69 

§ 2. Neglect of popular instruction in Christian evi¬ 
dences .74 

§ 3. Party-spirit among Christians, p. 90, consisting in 
a combination generally , and for objects not 

precisely defined .96 

§ 4. No arrogance implied in keeping aloof from party 99 
Note A. Extract of a letter from Mr. Wilber- 

force.107 

Note B. Doctrine of those who deprecate in¬ 
struction in evidences.108 

Note C. Extract from Charge of 1846 . .112 

ESSAY III. 

ON THE DANGER OF AN ERRONEOUS IMITATION 
OF CHRIST'S TEACHING. 

§ 1. Our Lord’s mode of teaching . . . . . . .131 

§ 2. Danger of a blind imitation of it.136 

§ 3. By recommending a spurious kind of faith . . .139 

§ 4. Or by referring to human authority as decisive . 144 
§ 5. Analogy between the created universe and the 

gospel revelation.155 









CONTENTS. 


XV 


PA8K 

§ 6. Christ’s authority not connected with secular 

coercion.166 

§ 7. Objections against Christianity from losing sight 

of this.172 

§ 8. Recapitulation of the points wherein a false imi¬ 
tation of Christ and his Apostles is likely to 

take place.175 

Note A. On the supposed decisions of the universal 

Church.179 

Note B. On appeals to Scripture as the standard . 184 

Note C. On private judgment.188 

Note D. On the rules for the application of scrip¬ 
ture precepts.197 

Note E. On the supposed duty of using coercion in 

matters of faith.201 

Note F. On monopoly of civil rights by the profes¬ 
sors of the true Faith.211 

DISCOURSE I. 

REMARKS ON THE BEST MODE OF CONVEYING 
SCRIPTURAL INSTRUCTION . 

§ 1. Explanation needed in respect of chapters and 

verses.239 

§ 2. Human authority not decisive.248 

§ 3. Christianity based on evidence.259 

§ 4. Proper use of religious instructors.265 

§ 5. Explanations needed for the reader of a translation 271 

Note A. On popular Christian evidences. . . 287 














VI 


CONTENTS. 


DISCOURSE II. 

JESUS DESPISED AS A NAZARENE. 


PAGE 

Probable meaning of the prophecy referred to in Matt. ii. 
p. 295. Apparent provision of Providence that 
Jesus should be called a Nazarene, p. 299.— 
Contrast between Him and John the Baptist, 
p. 301. Jewish explanation of his miracles, 
p. 305. Resemblance between some Christians 
and the Jews who rejected the Christ . . . .310 

DISCOURSE III. 

TREASON OF JUDAS ISCARIOT. 

A suffei'ing Messiah the chief offence of the Gospel at 
the beginning, p. 322. Instructive contempla¬ 
tion of the case of Judas, p. 327. Danger in 
the present day of giving, or of suffering from, 
causes of offence, p. 339. Certainty that 
offences will come,—no excuse for those who 

cause them.349 

Note on p. 337 . 352 


Index . 


357 







ESSAY I. 


THE DANGERS 

ARISING FROM CERTAIN 


INJUDICIOUS MODES OF PREACHING 






TO 


THE ARCHDEACON AND THE CLERGY 

OF THE 

UNITED DIOCESE OF DUBLIN AND GLANDELAGH, 

OTns dBssag, 

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AT THEIR REQUEST, 

IS INSCRIBED, 

BY 

THEIR SINCERE FRIEND AND BROTHER, 


THE AUTHOR. 



ESSAY I. 

ON THE DANGERS ARISING FROM CERTAIN INJU¬ 
DICIOUS MODES OF PREACHING. 

§ 1. A disinclination towards some system, 
theory, or practical rule that is really just and valu¬ 
able, may arise from either of two causes; from a 
misapprehension of the system itself;—its being 
viewed as different from what it really is : or again, 
from its opposition to some human passions or 
prejudices. Christianity is exposed to both these 
causes of aversion ; operating, not only on different 
individuals, but sometimes—each in a certain degree 
—on the same person. 

Some disregard, or dislike, or reject Christianity, 
from its being at variance with their inclinations 
and habits; others, from their conceiving it to be 
something different from what it is. As to the 


6 


Dangers arising from [essay i. 


former class, the aversion or indifference to the 
Gospel, resulting from human faults and weaknesses, 
has been often treated of. The other class, the 
misapprehensions of the character of Christianity 
occasioned by the mistakes, or by the indiscreet 
expressions of its teachers, is a subject less attended 
to, but not less deserving of attention. The pre¬ 
judices against Christianity thence arising are not 
only of very serious consequence, but—what is 
still more to the present purpose—are such as it is 
peculiarly incumbent on Christian instructors to 
guard against. 

On this subject, then, it is that I propose now 
to offer some remarks. It is one which demands 
the more careful attention, not only from its intrinsic 
importance, but also from the peculiar circumstances 
of the age in which we live. These are times in 
which less is felt than formerly of that prescriptive 
veneration for existing institutions, as such, which 
has so often supplied the place of deliberate pre¬ 
ference. No one can tell what weight of numbers, 
or of power, physical or moral, may, before long, 
be thrown into the scale of the adversaries, either 
of Christianity altogether, or of our own Church. 
And our teaching accordingly has, and is likely to 


7 


sect. 1.] Injudicious Preaching. 

have, less of extraneous support to rest upon, hu¬ 
manly speaking, than in ordinary times, and is left 
very much to the judgments that men may form of 
its truth and intrinsic value. It is on this account 
that I would suggest the reflection how peculiarly 
it behoves us, now, to be careful to “ cut off occa¬ 
sion from them that seek occasion of cavil or 
quarrel to guard against everything that may 
seem to justify complaint or reproach ; and not 
only to maintain what is good, but to “ take heed 
that our good be not evil spoken of.” 

It may be answered, that all regard to what may 
be said or thought of us, can furnish but a secon¬ 
dary motive ; and that if we are but duly anxious for 
the diffusion of divine truth, and the saving of 
men’s souls, we shall have no need to resort to any 
secondary motive to exertion, or to trouble our¬ 
selves about any other object. And certainly, as 
far as relates merely to our own credit and character, 
either as individuals or as a Body—as far as we 
alone are concerned, our chief care should be to 
guard against the encroachments of so very inferior 
a principle of action as a regard for the opinions of 
men .—to watch vigilantly against the besetting 
a Preface to Book of Common Prayer. 


8 


Bangers arising from [essay i. 


self-deceit of pursuing our own glory, and calling it 
the glory of God. A wish to escape the censure and 
obtain the approbation of our fellow-creatures, is a 
propensity which, though we are not called upon to 
extirpate it, (that being, I conceive, impossible,) we 
should yet repress, as if we did wish to extirpate 
it; quite secure that when we have checked it to 
the utmost of our power, we shall not fail to have 
enough of it left. 

But it is of quite another thing that I am speak¬ 
ing. Care to avoid leading or leaving men to mis¬ 
take truth for falsehood—care to place no stumbling- 
block in the way of the weak or the incautious 
among our own hearers, and to give no handle to 
adversaries—watchfulness against every thing that 
may be a hindrance to the reception, and the pro¬ 
fitable reception, of evangelical truth—all this, is 
very different from seeking our own credit for its 
own sake. And if an especial attention to these 
points in “ days of rebuke and blasphemy/’ a vigi¬ 
lant care to “ abstain from all appearance of evil,” 
lest we should bring a discredit on our religion—if 
this is to be regarded as at all a secondary motive, it 
is at least one which the apostles thought it right 
repeatedly to inculcate : having your “ conversation 


9 


sect. 1.] Injudicious Preaching. 

honest ” (says Peter) “ among the Gentiles ; that 
whereas they speak ayainst you as evil-doers , tliey 
may, by yonr good works which they shall behold, 
glorify God.” 

Now, as far as personal good works are concerned 
—a life pure not only from evil, but from all 
appearance of evil—this precept belongs alike to 
all Christians , whether Clergy or Laity :—whether 
givers or receivers of instruction. But what I now 
have in view more particularly is the application of 
the precept to those engaged in teaching. We are 
bound to consider what impression our instruction 
is likely to make, not only on the most attentive, and 
right-minded, and best-educated hearers, but also 
on those less considerate, less informed, and less 
candid. And we should consider also not only 
what may be truly, but what may be plausibly, 
urged against the delineation we present of evan¬ 
gelical religion;—prepared, not, of course, to sacri¬ 
fice to the fear of giving offence anything that really 
belongs to our religion, but, for the sake of all 
parties, to obviate, as far as possible, any miscon¬ 
ceptions of it:—not to omit any part of what is 
good, but to “ give no offence in anything.” 


10 Bangers arising from [essay i. 

§ 2. Let us suppose, for instance, that Chris¬ 
tianity generally, or our particular view of it, should 
be charged by the adversaries either of the one or 
the other, with being a system unfavourable to 
morality, and as such deserving to be discoun¬ 
tenanced by the civil magistrate; on the ground 
that it tends to withdraw attention from what is 
right and wrong in conduct, and leads men to expect 
divine favour through the correctness of their decision 
on certain points of belief, and through the strength 
of their faith in what has been done for them; and 
to relieve their minds from the reproaches of natural 
conscience, by a general confession of the universal 
depravity of human nature, and of the utter worth¬ 
lessness and vileness of all that men call virtue and 
righteousness; with a specious acknowledgment 
indeed that good works are the proper fruit of 
faith, but with a sort of practical dispensation (in 
cases of difficulty and strong temptation) from the 
bringing forth of those fruits, on account of the 
frailty and corruption of man’s nature; or, at least 
with a confidence that the tree will not fail to bring: 
forth its fruits without any care on our part; and 
that consequently we have only to take care of the 
faith, in full assurance that holiness of life will 


11 


sect. 2.] Injudicious Preaching . 

follow, without any special attention bestowed on 
that point: so that the morality of the Christian 
religion comes to be regarded, at best, as something 
suitable rather than indispensable; and as some¬ 
thing rather to be passively waited for, than dili¬ 
gently cultivated; and men’s only sedulous atten¬ 
tion is concentrated on the rectitude of their belief, 
the confidence of their hopes, and the fervour of 
their devotions. 

I have given a strong, but by no means an over¬ 
charged statement of one kind of objection which 
has been urged, and will be urged, again and again, 
by the opponents of evangelical religion. The ques¬ 
tion for us to consider is, not whether they are 
sincere or insincere,—fair or unfair in their imputa¬ 
tions : that is their concern : nor is it sufficient for 
us to inquire of ourselves whether we are personally 
immoral in practice, or antinomian in creed : that is 
our concern as individual Christians; but as Chris¬ 
tian instructors it behoves us to consider whether we 
are taking due care to guard against a misconstruc¬ 
tion of our teaching by the weak and ignorant, 
which we might have avoided without any compro¬ 
mise of truth. It is for us to consider in all cases 
not merely whether others are to blame, but whether 
we are ourselves fairly blameless. 


12 Bangers arising from [essay i. 

Now in respect of the particular point before us, 
it is certain that our Lord and his apostles, did not 
content themselves with simply declaring the con¬ 
nexion of Christian faith with moral conduct, and 
then bestowing all their culture on the tree, leaving 
that to bring forth its own fruits as a matter of 
course; but insisted earnestly and frequently on the 
care and exertion requisite both in respect of a 
Christian life generally, and of several particular 
points of duty; and sedulously guarded their 
hearers against deceiving themselves on this point. 
For where there is (as appears to be the case here) 
a natural tendency to some particular self-deceit, it 
is by no means enough merely to abstain from 
fostering the error, without taking pains to repress 
it; and to satisfy ourselves with merely not feeding 
a fire which is spontaneously kindled and kept up. 
“ Why call ye me/ 5 says our Saviour, “Lord! 
Lord ! and do not the things which I say? 55 “ Be 
ye doers of the word/ 5 says the apostle James, 
“ and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” 
“ Little children, 55 says the apostle John, “ let no 
man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness, is 
righteous. 55 Jesus again, when teaching his dis¬ 
ciples, that He is the true vine, of which they are 
the branches, and that “ without Him they can do 


sect. 2 .] Injudicious Preaching. 


13 


nothing/’ is careful to add “ herein is my Father 
glorified, that ye bring forth much fruit: every 
branch in me that beareth not fruit, He taketh 
away; and every branch in me that beareth fruit, 
He cleanseth it that it may bring forth more fruit.” b 
And in a like strain are the continual exhortations and 
warnings which the apostle Paul thought it requisite 
to give, and to direct Timothy and Titus to give, 

“ in order,” says he, “ that they who have believed 
in God may be careful to maintain good works.” 

It appears then that, from some cause or other, 
there was a danger, in the time of the apostles, of 
men’s losing sight of all this:—a danger, I mean, 
not merely of their being hurried into sin by strong 
temptation, or living in utter thoughtlessness about 
their religion, but also, of their being deceived into 
some notion of being religious without virtue. And 
since this was the case in the apostles’ days, we 
ought at least not too hastily to conclude that there 
can be no such danger now. 

In fact, there always has been, in every age, and 
always will be, while human nature continues, a 
liability to self-deceit on this point:—something 

b John xv. 1—3. The connexion between Kadalpsi (purgeth) 
and Kadapoi (clean) is kept out of sight in the common trans¬ 
lation. 


14 


Dangers arising from 


[essay I. 


quite distinct from our proneness to live in a total 
disregard of duty, or to offend against the sugges¬ 
tions of conscience :—a tendency to satisfy and 
quiet the conscience, by placing the whole of reli¬ 
gious duty in something altogether apart from 
moral conduct. 

The piety, for instance, of the ancient Heathen, 
had, we know, in general, little or no connexion 
with morality: and indeed was quite as often con¬ 
nected with gross immorality. 0 The Jews again, 
were, as we know from the best authority, prone to 
place their religion in ceremonial observances, and 
“ omit the weightier matters of the Law.” This 
was their mode of “ establishing their own right¬ 
eousness/’ and satisfying the claims of religion 
without morality of life. And the Christians again 
of the apostles’ times, needed, we find, to be earn¬ 
estly warned against the danger of being content to 
“ continue in sin that grace might abound,” and of 
satisfying themselves with a faith-without-works, 
which “ is dead; being alone.” 

Should we therefore flatter ourselves that, in 
these days, we and our hearers are safe from any 
like danger, we should be only the more exposed to 
it, through careless security. 

c See “ Sermons delivered in Dublin,” pp. 5, 6. 


sect. 3.] Injudicious Preaching . 15 

§ 3. The danger, in respect of the point now 
before us, to which the Christian is exposed, arises 
from the misapprehension or misapplication of 
several passages of the New Testament. 

You will not fail to recollect very many, such 
as may be, and have been, so interpreted as to be 
at variance with all those exhortations to good 
works, which abound in the sacred writers. 

When Paul t^ells his hearers that “ we are justified 
by faith, without the works of the law;”—that he 
“ desires to be found not having his own righteous¬ 
ness, which is of the Law, but that which is through 
the faith of Christ ;” d —that it is “ not by works of 
righteousness which we have done, but according to 
His mercy, that God hath saved us;” e — that 
“ being justified by His grace, we should be made 
heirs according to the hope of eternal life:” 6 — 
when these and numberless other declarations to the 
same effect, in various places, are set forth, (which 
undoubtedly they ought to be) as the very basis of 
evangelical religion, it is evidently a possible thing 
—for we know that it has actually taken place— 
that men should make such an application of these 
passages, as to pay little or no regard to moral 


d Phil. iii. 


e Titus iii. 


16 Dangers arising from [essay i. 

conduct, at least as having anything to do with the 
gospel-salvation. And there is a danger, that even 
if they do not go so far as to consider virtue and 
vice as entirely indifferent in God’s sight, or even if 
they are not so exclusively on the watch against 
that trust in merits of their own, which, in the 
language of some writers, is called “ self-righteous¬ 
ness,” (meaning, “ self-justification,”) as to guard 
against it by practising no righteousness at all, they 
may yet be so disproportionately occupied with the 
dread of the one danger, as to take little or no pre¬ 
caution against the other; so careful of not trusting 
to their good works, as not to be sufficiently (as 
Paul directs us) “ careful to maintain good works.” 

This last is a danger men are much more exposed 
to than that of rejecting moral virtue altogether, as 
having nothing to do with Christianity/ This,— 

f Men are however often taught that nothing we can do can 
further our salvation : and though this is true in one sense 
namely that no virtuous conduct of Man’s can have any 
intrinsic claim to reward, independently of divine promise, 
yet if the proposition is broadly stated without any qualifying 
explanation, most hearers will not fail to draw the antinomian 
inference. For, if, they will say my doing so and so does not 
further my salvation, my omitting to do it, cannot hinder my 
salvation ; and if my abstaining from a certain act has no 


sect. 3.] Injudicious I reaching. 


17 


the Antinomian doctrine,—is far from being either 
commonly taught, or generally acceptable; and, 
considering the sinfulness of the human heart, it 
is very remarkable that this should be the case. 
Certain it is, however, that the generality of men 
are shocked and disgusted at being plainly taught 
that no sin a man commits, can at all endanger his 
salvation; and that the practice of any virtue does 
not render him at all the more acceptable to God. 
There are, it seems, certain notions of right and 
wrong implanted by the Creator in the human 
mind; (alluded to by Paul, in Ep. to Rom. ii. 14, 
and elsewhere) which are such, till depraved by a 
long course of wickedness, that, though insufficient 
to produce great exertion in the performance of 
duty, or to resist temptation to do wrong, they yet, 
in the absence of temptation, disincline men to 
regard moral good and evil with total indifference, 

tendency to forward my salvation, my doing the act cannot 
endanger my salvation. 

The distinction, if there be any, is such as can never be 
made clear to ordinary readers. 

And if we will submit to take pattern from the inspired 
writers, we find them, while always representing eternal life as 
the free “gift of God,” yet also representing God as “not 
unrighteous to forget our labour of love.” 

C 


18 Dangers arising from [essay i. 

or to conceive that God can do so. Moreover, 
there is no one, probably, however lax in his morals, 
who does not believe himself to possess at least 
some good quality which many persons want; or 
who lives, and believes himself to live, in the com¬ 
mission of every sin. Even a man of immoral 
character, accordingly, is, in general, not well 
pleased to be taught that any instance of his good 
conduct, (or which he thinks to be such) gives him 
no advantage over one whose conduct, in the same 
point, has been bad; or that his having abstained 
from any crime, does not at all raise him (except as 
far as worldly success may be concerned) above the 
level of one who has committed that crime. Men 
even of a very low tone of morality usually retain, 
and wish to retain, such a portion of approbation 
of what is good, and disapprobation of evil, as to 
think the better of themselves for anything that is 
good in them, and the worse of their neighbour for 
any vice of his, from which they are themselves 
exempt. 

Be the cause, however, what it may, the fact 
is certain, that plain, open, thorough-going, Anti- 
nomian doctrine is not generally popular, even with 
men of depraved character. 


sect. 3.] Injudicious Preaching . 19 

Much greater is the danger (as I have already 
remarked) of men’s falling practically into a care¬ 
less inattention to their moral conduct, than of 
their theoretically maintaining that moral conduct 
is a matter of indifference. Error is ever the 
more dangerous, the more it is mixed up with 
truth. Now, it is most true, and a truth of great 
importance, that “ good works ”—external actions 
of any kind—so far from having any claim to 
be considered as meritorious, are not, properly, to 
be regarded as even intrinsically virtuous. Even 
the heathen moralists distinctly taught that it is 
the disposition of the agent that alone can, in 
strict language, be called virtuous or vicious; the 
same act sometimes being either morally good, 
or bad, or indifferent, according to the motive . g 
And it is true also that even the best moral dis¬ 
positions and habits can claim no reward as a 
matter of right, at the hands of Him “ from 
whom cometh every good and perfect gift ”— 
of Him “ from whom all holy desires, all good 
counsels, and all just works, do proceed.” The 
branch cannot boast itself independent of the vine 
which affords it all its nourishment—even Christ; 
e Arist. Eth. Nicom. B. ii, 
c 2 


20 Bangers arising from [essay i. 

on whose body we are engrafted, through faith, 
and by whom we are enabled to bring forth 
fruit. h 

But if any one, while he dwells continually, and 
very strongly, (as we certainly ought to do,) on 
justification by faith, and on the total impossi¬ 
bility of our being able to merit and earn, either 
wholly, or in part, eternal happiness, by any good 
works of our own, even could we lead a life of 
sinless virtue, and on the consequent necessity of 
renouncing all claims founded on our own right¬ 
eousness, and of prostrating ourselves in all humility 
of soul before the cross of Christ;—if, I say, while 
the Christian is earnestly occupied with these doc¬ 
trines, and is labouring daily to impress on himself 
and his hearers the impossibility of our doing any¬ 
thing that can purchase salvation, he is content, at 
the same time, with a slight occasional hint that 
this doctrine is not irreconcileable with the moral 
precepts of Christ and his apostles,—if he is satis¬ 
fied with just inserting an incidental salvo, by 
saying, in substance, that notwithstanding the 
utter worthlessness of our good works, nevertheless, 
it is to be expected that a sincere Christian wil] 


h John xv. 5. 


sect. 3 .] Injudicious Preaching. 


21 


lead a moral life;—if, I say, this disproportionate 
inattention be shewn, with respect to the practical 
“ fruits of the Spirit/' a very great danger will 
result, of men's substituting a mere approbation of 
Christian virtue in the abstract, for the practical 
exemplication of it in their lives a danger that, 
while they admit, in theory, the obligations of 
virtue, they will not comply, practically, with the 
apostle’s direction to “ be careful to maintain good 
works." 1 

It was evidently his design, as well as his 
blessed Master’s, that Christians should exert them¬ 
selves to “ walk worthy of their vocation /'—should 
“ give diligence (as Peter exhorts them,) “ to 
make their calling and election sure/'—should 
“watch, that they enter not into temptation/' 
—should “ run , that they may obtain /'—should 
“ strive to enter in at the strait gate /'—should 
“ work out their own salvation, with fear and 
trembling /'—and “ casting aside every weight, 
and the sin that doth so easily beset us, should run 
with patience the race set before them." The 
apostles expected, not that the Christian should be 
a good man notwithstanding his being justified 
1 Tit. iii. 8. 


22 


Dangers arising from 


[essay I. 


through faith, but that he should be the better man 
in consequence of his faith; not only acting on 
better motives than those who were not Christians, 
but also acting better,—“ glorifying his heavenly 
Father by bringing forth much fruit/' and by let¬ 
ting his “ light so shine before men, that all might 
see his good works," and thence be led to glorify 
Him also. 

But a different kind of teaching from this is 
often found to be popular; though plain Anti- 
nomian teaching is not. There are many who, 
like Felix, will be ready to “ hear you concerning the 
faith in Christ," but “ when you reason of right¬ 
eousness, and temperance, and the judgment to 
come," will be alarmed and uneasy, and be disposed 
to bid you “ go your way for this time!" Anything 
that leads, or that leaves men,—without distinctly 
rejecting Christian virtue,—to feel little anxiety and 
take little pains about it;—anything which, though 
perhaps not so meant, is liable to be so understood, 
by those who have the wish, as to leave them 
without any feeling of real shame, or mortification, 
or alarm, on account of their own faults and moral 
deficiencies, so as to make them anxiously watchful 
only against seeking salvation by good works, and 


sect. 3.] Injudicious I reaching. 23 

not at all, against seeking salvation without good 
works—all this is likely to be much more acceptable 
to the corrupt disposition of “ the natural man/’ 
than such teaching as that of our Lord and his 
apostles. 

But those apostles would have counted it treason 
to their Master, in themselves, or in us, to be 
“ men-pleasers,” seeking what may be most accept¬ 
able to the hearers, rather than most profitable; or 
shrinking, through fear of unpopularity, from 
“ setting before them all the counsel of God.” 
And it would be very rash for us of the present 
day, to imagine that we can with safety pass slightly 
over the points which the apostles found it neces¬ 
sary to dwell on with such continual watchfulness, 
and frequent and earnest repetition. For the 
liability of the human heart to self-deceit in what 
relates to moral duty, was not peculiar to their 
times. And we are bound not merely to reconcile 
together the several parts of their teaching, but to 
shew the close connexion of those different parts, 
where the writers themselves evidently perceived 
such connexion. If we were to explain that a life 
abounding in good works is not inconsistent with 
faith in Christ, we should by no means come up to 


24 Dangers arising from [essay i, 

their meaning; which is, that the one springs 
naturally and necessarily from the other, and that 
both, and each, must be sedulously attended to;— 
that “ the branch,” (to use our Lord’s illustration) 
“can bear no fruit except it abide in the vine;” 
and again, that any “ branch of the vine which 
does not bear fruit, will be cut off and cast away to 
wither.” 

§ 4. I will then briefly point out the mode in 
which I think any Christian instructors should set 
before their hearers the right interpretation of the 
apostle’s language in respect of these doctrines, so 
as to exhibit the several portions of his teaching 
not merely as not inconsistent with each other, but 
as having that intimate connexion which he himself 
evidently perceived them to have : 

First, then, we should point out that though it 
is very true, men can put in no claim to everlast¬ 
ing life on the ground of even a perfect and 
unsinning obedience; this truth is not the one 
which the apostle is occupied in inculcating. The 
error of the Jews and of those Christians who had 
been misled by them, was not that of seeking to 
justify themselves before God by strict morality , 


25 


sect. 4.] Injudicious Preaching. 

(though that would have been an error,) but by the 
ceremonial observances of the Levitical law. This 
is plain from the notorious neglect , among them, of 
moral duties—the “ weightier matters of the law,” 
with which our Lord reproaches them, when He 
compares them to men who “ make clean the out¬ 
side of the cup and platter,” leaving the inside 
defiled ; and remarks that while they prided them¬ 
selves on a rigid adherence to minute ceremonial 
precepts, they were “ full of extortion and wicked¬ 
ness.” So also does the apostle Paul in the Epistle 
to the Romans, k (a great portion of those to whom 
he addresses the epistle being Jews by nation,) 
speak of the Jews as notoriously “ causing the name 
of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles,” 
through their violation of the moral law. It is 
plain, therefore, that when he speaks of these very 
men “ as going about to establish their own right¬ 
eousness,” and seeking to be “ justified by the works 
of the Law,” he is speaking not of moral virtue, but 
the works of the ceremonial Law. 

You may observe accordingly, that, in the case 
he so earnestly dwells on, (especially in the Epistle 
to the Romans 1 ) that of Abraham, who was “ justi- 
k Chap. ii. 1 Chap. iv. 


26 


Dangers arising from 


[essay I. 


fied by faith/’ which was “ imputed to him for 
righteousness/’ he is contrasting faith not with 
moral virtue (for Abraham’s faith, displaying itself, 
as we know it did, in ready and thorough-going 
obedience, plainly was a moral virtue) but, with 
ceremonial observances. For, the reason of Paul’s 
dwelling so much on this instance, evidently is 
because Abraham not only was not under the 
Mosaic Law, but had not, as yet, even received 
the sign of circumcision : m this therefore proved, 
—what the apostle is contending for—that Abra¬ 
ham’s righteousness was independent of ceremonial 
rites. 

This may be still further elucidated, from the 
passage in the Epistle to the Philippians, (ch. iii.) 
where the apostle speaks of himself as being, 
“ touching the righteousness which is by the Law, 
blameless all this being however counted by him 
as dross, “ that he might win Christ, and be found 
not having his own righteousness which is by the 
Law, but the righteousness which is by faith of 
Christ.” Now we cannot suppose him so arrogant 
as to attribute to himself moral perfection: indeed 
we know that his persecution of the Christians he 
m Chap. iv. 10. 


27 


sect. 4 .] Injudicious Ircaching. 

regarded as a grievous sin ; which though God was 
pleased to pardon “ because he did it ignorantly, in 
unbelief,” yet could not leave him morally blameless; 
for then there would have been nothing to pardon; 
nor again would he have spoken of moral virtue and 
holiness of life, as dross. It is evident he is 
speaking of the ceremonial part of the Mosaic 
Law. 

And lastly, you may point out, in still further 
confirmation of this, that his strong declarations 
against the error of seeking to be “ justified by 
works,” are all addressed to those among whom the 
Judaizing teachers (first mentioned as troubling the 
brethren at Antioch) * had been busied, or were 
likely to be, in putting on the disciples the yoke of 
the Mosaic ceremonies. He writes on this subject 
accordingly, chiefly to the Romans, and to the 
churches in Asia; who were the most exposed to 
this danger. To the Greek Churches he writes 
chiefly on other points; indeed the only exception 
I recollect is that portion of the Epistle to the 
Philippians which I have just cited; and in that 
it is evident he is cautioning them against the 
Judaizing teachers.” 11 Now if the error he was 


n Phil. iii. 2. 


28 


Dangers arising from [essay i. 


combating had been that of men’s seeking to earn 
salvation by their own moral virtue , it is plain the 
danger of this error would have been quite as great 
among Gentiles as Jews. But the error he really 
was opposing, and the danger of which he evidently 
regarded as confined to the Jews and to those who 
listened to them, was that of seeking justification 
by ceremonial observances. The other is indeed an 
error; but not the one he had in view. 

It may be added that the error which the apostle 
does mean to oppose in these passages, is one more 
likely, in all times, to prevail, than the other. You 
will generally find, for one person who seeks to 
justify himself by the practice of moral virtue, 
twenty who rely on external ordinances, and com¬ 
pliance with positive rules: and the term “ good 
works ” has come, even among Christians, in various 
ages and countries, to be emphatically applied in 
this sense. 0 

0 An error, very nearly the same, had crept in among us, 
to a vast extent, before the Reformation. “ Good works ” 
had come to signify, principally, if not exclusively, pilgrimages, 
fasts, genuflections, and ceremonial observances of various 
kinds; and hence our Reformers used much the same lan¬ 
guage as the Apostle Paul, with the same meaning, and on 
a like occasion. 

“ Both were, indeed, well aware that virtuous actions can 


sect. 4.] Injudicious Preaching . 


29 


In the next place, we should point out to our 
hearers that “ the righteousness of Christ,” which 
the apostle Paul directs his hearers to seek, was a 
moral habit , given by Christ to his followers :—im¬ 
planted in them by Him through the operation of 
his Spirit. It did not consist in their merely 
standing acquitted, through divine mercy, of the 
sins committed by them; or in their having im¬ 
puted to them the righteousness practised by 
another and not by themselves ; p but it implied, 

never give a man a claim to the Christian promises, indepen¬ 
dently of Christian faith ; and also that the best actions—in 
themselves the best—are not acceptable in God’s sight (indeed 
are not even morally virtuous at all) independently of the 
principle from which they spring. But it is a notorious fact, 
that it was not by virtuous actions—what are usually so called 
—that the Judaizing Christians, and the later corrupters of 
Christianity, sought to justify themselves, hut by ceremonial 
observances. 

“ Such an error as that was at least as likely to exist among 
Gentiles quite unconnected with Jews: (see Essay i. § 11, 
First Series.) That Paul’s cautions, therefore, against the 
notion of being ‘justified by works,’ are addressed exclusively 
to those churches which contained a great mixture oiJews and 
Judaizing teachers, is an additional indication of his real 
meaning.”— Sermons , pp. 401, 402. 

p See Essay (Second Series) on “ Imputed Righteousness.” 


30 Dangers arising from [essay i. 

according to the apostle’s representation, their 
actually becoming —not merely being accounted — 
good men ; their bringing forth the fruits of the 
Spirit, and putting on, in their own practice, this 
righteousness of Christ, this “ wedding-garment,” 
as He Himself calls it, in the parable of the 
marriage-feast: a garment provided indeed for the 
guests (according to the oriental custom) by the 
master of the feast, but which they were required 
to wear. 

I am well aware that I am not speaking in con¬ 
formity with the established phraseology of those 
technical systems of divinity, which draw precise 
distinctions, in reference to the present subject, 
between “justification,” and “sanctification,” as 
defined in those systems. But you should observe 
that I am not at present occupied either in framing 
or in expounding,—either in defending, or in cen¬ 
suring,—any technical system whatever; but only 
in pointing out how we may best explain the 
language of the apostle Paul; whose writings were 
not scientific, but popular. I am not finding fault 
with any technical system, so long as it is not made 
a substitute for the Scriptures as the basis of men’s 
faith; or allowed to fetter the meaning of the sacred 


sect. 4.] Injudicious Preaching. 


31 


writers ; or so introduced as to increase rather than 
diminish the difficulty of clearly understanding them. 
Many such systems, though differing from each 
other, and from the Scriptures, in the sense attached 
to each term , may yet perhaps all agree in the 
substance of the doctrines taught. But looking to 
that which is our present subject of inquiry,—the 
apostle’s use of terms,—it may be established 
beyond all reasonable doubt, that the word he 
employs ( Iikcliogvvy )) which is rendered in some 
versions “justice,” and in others “righteousness,” 
is a word q which must have implied to any one 
acquainted (as Paul doubtless was) with the usages 
of the Greek language, a moral habit; a habit pos¬ 
sessed and exercised by the person to whom it is 
attributed. A mere acquittal ,—a verdict of “not 
guilty,”—an imputation to any one of good actions 

q I have been told that, in some recent publication, a doubt 
was raised as to the rule here alluded to, respecting the nouns 
ending in ocrwr), and that evtypoavvri was given as an instance 
against it ; but on what grounds, I cannot learn. I have 
always found it used to signify “cheerfulness,” in perfect 
analogy, consequently, w r ith the other nouns of like termination. 
There is one passage and only one, (Gal. ii. 21,) in which 
liKaioovvr} appears to be used in the sense of ducalweig. But 
in the case of a word of such very frequent occurrence, both 


32 


Bangers arising from 


[essay I. 


not really performed by him,—would have been ex¬ 
pressed by another, very different word. (hucaLao-Ls.)' 
And this serves to explain his continually supposing 
this righteousness of Christ which is bestowed on 
us by Him, through faith, to be something practi- 

in Paul’s writings and in the Classics, a single instance ought 
not—at least in deciding on the usual sense of a word—to be 
set against general practice. 

r “ I wonder the continual use of the word A ucaioavvr] 
(righteousness,) where the subject of justification is treated of, 
has not led learned men to suspect the soundness of the mere 
forensic theory. I apprehend that nothing could be more 
inapplicable than a Greek noun ending in oarvvrj , to a mere 
business of reputation, or extrinsic change. All such substan¬ 
tives seem to me, without exception, to express actual and 
personal habits, rooted in the mind, and manifested in the 
conduct; at least, the latter is implied invariably. I allow, a 
vulgar writer, in any language, might overlook such a nicety; 
but, to say nothing of that Divine superintendence, and that 
knowledge of tongues, which St. Paul had so abundantly from 
heaven, he was himself too excellent a critic, to have over¬ 
looked such a rule in language. Is it, then, credible, that 
St. Paul should be almost continually applying a word, which 
he uses oftener than any other single word whatever, and the 
real force of which he could not but know, in an unnatural 
and inadmissible sense? Especially when he had in readi¬ 
ness the much more flexible word Auca/ame (justification;) 
and actually uses it, at least in two instances, where the 
sense obviously required it.”— A. Knox's Remains, vol. i. 


sect. 4.] Injudicious Preaching. 


33 


cally exemplified in the life of the Christian ; to be 
an actual “ putting on of Christ/’ in respect of the 
Christian’s own conduct and character: that as the 
“ putting off of the old man ” implies the actual 
discontinuing of a corrupt and depraved life, so, 
the “ putting on of the new man ” may, in like 
manner, imply the adoption of an opposite course 
of life. 

To take one passage out of many to the same 
purpose that you might set before your hearers: 
“ After that the kindness and love of God our 
Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of 

Letter to Mr. Parker, on Justification. The whole letter will 
well repay a perusal. 

It has been inferred, I understand, from my coinciding, in 
this point, with Mr. Knox, that I must have derived my views, 
directly or indirectly, from him. I should gladly have availed 
myself of the suggestions of Mr. Knox, or any other intelligent 
man ; but the fact is, that when I published the second series 
of Essays, (containing, in substance, the same views,) I was 
ignorant even of the existence of Mr. Knox, and unacquainted 
with any of his associates. 

But the conclusions in which we have concurred, are what 
I think any man would draw, who, with competent scholar¬ 
ship, should diligently and candidly examine, with a view to 
the present question, both the classical and the New Testa¬ 
ment writers. 

D 


34 


Bangers arising from [essay i. 

righteousness which we have done, but according to 
his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regenera¬ 
tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He 
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our 
Saviour ; that being justified by his grace, we should 
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal 
life. 8 This,” he adds, “is a faithful saying, and 
these things I will that thou affirm constantly, in 
order that they who have believed in God may be 
careful to maintain good works.” 

Many other passages conveying the same doctrine, 
from several of the sacred writers,—the apostle 
Paul not least,—we should accustom ourselves from 
time to time to set forth, and point out the instruc¬ 
tion to be drawn from them. For instance, in 
Rom. viii. “There is now no condemnation to 
them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
the flesh but after the Spirit; * * # * they 

that are in the flesh cannot please God; but 
ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that 
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any have 
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” &c. 
This portion of that epistle should be the more 


Titus iii. 4—7. 


SECT. 4.] 


Injudicious Preaching. 


35 


sedulously dwelt on, because the unfortunate sepa¬ 
ration of chapters is likely to lead those who are 
accustomed to read according to that division into 
the mistake of supposing that Paul in the description 
just above (ch. vii.) of the “ carnal man, sold under 
sin,” is describing his own , actual state ; whereas 
it is plain he is contrasting that wretched state, of 
being “ in captivity to the law of sin,” with the 
condition of those “ who through the Spirit do 
mortify the deeds of the flesh.” 

The last caution I will advert to under the present 
head, is, that we should warn those who are living 
a Christian life on Christian principles, that they 
have not on that ground any pretence for boasting 
(“ glorying,” as our version of the apostle's words 
expresses it) as if they could merit salvation; but 
must say, (as our Lord directs us,) when they have 
done all that is commanded them, “ we are unpro¬ 
fitable servants; we have done but that which it was 
our duty to do.” And yet, since they know that 
“ God is not unrighteous, to forget their labour of 
love,” they may fully trust in his being faithful to 
his promises, and in his “rewarding them that 
diligently seek Him; not because they have earned 
his favour, but because He has freely promised it. 
d 2 


36 


Dangers arising from [essay i. 

And if any one professes to trust in Him for what 
He has not promised,—to seek justification by faith 
in Him, without loving Him,—or to love him, with¬ 
out giving that proof of love which he has required, 
the “ keeping of his commandments, 5 ' — if any 
one pretends to be a true branch of the vine, 
Christ Jesus, yet takes not care to be a fruitful 
branch, we are bound to warn such a person that 
he is dangerously deceiving himself, and is in 
instant danger of being “ cast forth as a branch and 
withered." 

§ 5. In respect of another point again,— Chris¬ 
tian humility —much care is requisite in our teach¬ 
ing, to guard against misconceptions of what may 
be, when rightly understood, very true doctrine ;— 
misconceptions such as may dangerously mislead 
some of the less considerate of our hearers, and 
may furnish adversaries with plausible objections 
against our religion as leading men into spiritual 
pride and presumptuous confidence, under the name 
of humility. I have said that peculiar care is requi¬ 
site in our inculcation of this virtue especially, 
because it is one in which men are least apt to 
believe themselves deficient; and thus those who 


sect. 5.] Injudicious Prcaching. 37 

are deficient in it, superadd to all their other pride, 
the pride of supposed humility. 

The Christian then should be diligently warned 
against so perilous a self-deceit. Under this head, 
men should be cautioned—1st, against the mistake 
of supposing that they have only to confess their 
own natural helplessness, and acknowledge that 
whatever there is that is good in them is the boun¬ 
tiful gift of God; and that so long as they have this 
before their minds, they are practising Christian 
humility, and are safe from spiritual pride. Now 
this pious gratitude and reliance on God is indeed 
a necessary part of Christian humility; but it is 
only a part, and very far indeed from being the 
whole. It puts an end to one kind of self-sufficiency, 
by acknowledging that “our sufficiency is of God;” 
but it is far from being inconsistent with spiritual 
pride, undue contempt of others, and a disposition 
rashly to “ count ourselves to have apprehended;” 
instead of “ forgetting those things that are behind, 
and reaching forth unto those things that are before, 
and pressing toward the mark for the prize of the 
high calling of God, in Christ Jesus,” by “working 
out our salvation with fear and trembling.” 

A Christian instructor should point out accord- 


38 Bangers arising from [essay t. 

ingly to his hearers, that in our Lord’s parable of 
the Pharisee and the Publican, the Pharisee is de¬ 
scribed as full of pious gratitude for his own sup¬ 
posed superiority: “ God, I thank thee that I am 
not as other men are ; extortioners, unjust, adul¬ 
terers/’ &c. And yet this man, though so distinctly 
referring everything to the divine power, is repre¬ 
sented by our Lord as “ exalting himself 

Do we not indeed see every day how prone men 
are to be proud of royal favour?—of having re¬ 
ceived from their sovereign, out of his kind regard 
for them, such distinctions as title, rank, power, 
fortune ? How absurd then must it be for any 
one to suppose that there is no danger of being 
proud of divine favour,—that he is quite safe from 
pride, when he is perhaps convinced that he is dis¬ 
tinguished as a favourite by the King of kings, and 
exalted far above the great body of his fellow- 
Cliristians, and so peculiarly enlightened by that 
Spirit of truth as to be exempt from all danger of 
error, and all need of self-distrust! Self-distrust, 
indeed, such a person will regard, in his own case, 
as a sin; for he will consider any doubts concerning 
the perfect rectitude of anything that occurs to his 
own mind, as no less than distrust of God; after it 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Preaching. 39 

has once been laid down and assumed as a prin¬ 
ciple, that all these impressions in his mind are 
undoubted suggestions of God’s Holy Spirit. He 
may pray perhaps fervently on each occasion, for 
spiritual guidance: but if he neglect our Lord’s 
admonition, “ Watch and pray, that ye enter not 
into temptation,”—he inevitably will be led into 
temptation ; by praying without watching, he will 
be in fact praying that he may find himself in the 
right; and by steadily rejecting every emotion of 
self-distrust, as the suggestion of the Evil-one 
prompting him to distrust God, doubtless he will 
end by being fully convinced that he is in the right. 
Thus effectually does Satan “ transform himself 
into an angel of light,”—by representing not only 
his own suggestions as coming from heaven, but 
every better suggestion as coming from himself;— 
by leading us not merely not to seek rightly for 
true Christian humility, but to shun it as a sin. 

§ 6. Secondly, Men should be warned not to 
suppose Christian humility to consist in a mere 
general confession of the weakness and sinfulness 
of human nature, or (which comes to the same) 
such a sinfulness in themselves—or, if you will, 


40 


Bangers arising from [essay i. 

such an utter corruption and total depravity in 
their own nature,—as they believe to be common 
to every descendant of Adam, including the most 
eminent apostles, and other saints. 

I am not saying, you will observe, that the 
sinful disposition of the natural-man is to be denied, 
or explained away, or lost sight of; only, that the 
fullest and most habitual consciousness of this , does 
not constitute the whole, or the chief, and most 
difficult part of Christian humility. A man may 
indeed feel shame, mortification, self-abasement, 
alarm,—at being in any respect worse than might 
have been reasonably expected of him ;—at having 
failed in some duty, or fallen into some sin, where 
others in like circumstances have behaved, or 
probably would have behaved, better. But who 
can really feel ashamed,— grieved,—humbled—or 
alarmed,—at believing himself no better than the 
very best of men;—a sinner as vile as the apostles 
and martyrs, who told us to be “ followers of them, 
even as they were of Christ Jesus?” 4 It is very 
true that they were by nature sinful men, and had 
to struggle, as we have, against the original frailty 
of man’s heart, and to subdue it by the help of 


1 Cor. xi. 1. 


sect. 6 ] Injudicious Preaching. 41 

God’s Spirit. All I am saying, is, that we must 
not allow the Christian to deceive himself into the 
thought that he really feels shame from a sense of 
any imperfection, great or small, which is common 
to the whole human race ; or, that perfect Christian 
humility consists in confessing one’s self to be 
no better than the very best and most eminent 
Christians" 

It is very right that a child should be fully 
sensible of his not having the understanding and 
other powers of a man; but you will seldom find 
a child really mortified and ashamed of his being 
no more than a child, and not possessing manly 
stature and understanding, if he is but equal or 
superior to his school-fellows of the same age. 
It is when he falls short of these, or has com¬ 
mitted some fault which they have avoided, or 
which a child might have been fairly expected to 
avoid,—it is then, that he is likely to feel real 
shame; and what is more, a profitable shame, such 
as may incite him to endeavour to do better in 
future; whereas no one is incited to any exertion 
for the attainment of anything which he believes to 
be absolutely unattainable by himself and by his 
u See Note at the end of this Essay. 


42 


Bangers arising from 


[essay I. 


whole species. No man accordingly either attempts 
to add a cubit to his stature, and to still the waves 
of the sea by his command; or is ashamed at not 
having such power;—a power which, as he knows, 
belongs not to Man. His humiliation at a defi¬ 
ciency, and his exertions to overcome it, are alike 
limited to deficiencies which are not regarded as 
unavoidable . 

I have dwelt at perhaps greater length than was 
necessary, on a point which appears to me to be of 
great moment. It is a truth which perhaps it is 
not very difficult,—but certainly very important— 
to establish, that a man may be very deficient in 
personal Christian humility, who confesses, however 
strongly, and reflects on, however earnestly, the 
universal depravity of human nature; speaking 
indeed in, apparently, the most disparaging terms, 
of himself; but in such terms as he holds to be 
equally applicable to the most eminent of the 
Apostles and Martyrs. 

And to this may be added, that there is not, 
necessarily, any humility evinced in the strong cen¬ 
sures which some are accustomed to pass on the 
alleged presumption of such as hold the possibility 
of the Christian’s attaining, through divine help, 


43 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Prcaching. 

complete and sinless perfection in the performance 
of duty. 

If indeed any one maintains that he himself has 
attained perfection, he is doubtless guilty of a high 
degree of presumption. And I do believe that no 
small danger of something approaching at least to 
such presumption, is incurred by some, from the 
view they take of the doctrine of the new-birth; 
and from their understanding the expression of the 
apostle John (1st Ep. iii. 6)—“ Whosoever is born 
of God doth not commit sin,” as an insulated sen¬ 
tence, and without the explanation and qualifica¬ 
tions which the very same Epistle furnishes: (as 
in ch. ii. and ch. v. ver. 16.) The apostle certainly 
means no less,—and I conceive he means no more, 
— than that all sin is a thing at variance with the 
character of a regenerate man; and that the anti- 
nomian doctrines of the Gnostics—whom he is 
especially writing against—are utterly unchristian. 

But the danger I am now adverting to is this : 
there are some who, apparently at least, maintain 
that every sin of any alarming magnitude implies 
the need of being born againimplies, in short, 
that the new-birth (since this cannot take place 
more than once) has not taken place. Now any 


44 Bangers arising from [essay i. 

one who has adopted this view, will be likely, if he 
is fully persuaded that he himself has experienced 
the new-birth, and has thus been placed in a state 
of grace, to regard himself as exempt from all 
danger of falling into sin, at least, any such sin as 
may endanger his final salvation; since this, accord¬ 
ing to his view of the doctrine of regeneration, 
would be an impossibility. Such accordingly seems 
to have been the conviction which, we are told, 
supported Oliver Cromwell on his death-bed, who 
on being strongly assured by his attendants of the 
indefectibility of divine grace, exclaimed, “Then I 
am safe; for I am certain that I was once in a state 
of grace.” Whatever sins he might have been 
subsequently permitted to fall into, could not, 
according to this view, endanger the loss of divine 
favour. And any one who has such a persuasion 
will no more think of vigilant precaution against 
sin, than a man would against one of those diseases 
that can only occur once, if he has already had it. 

If, however, any one only maintains—without 
pronouncing anything respecting himself, — the 
possibility of attaining Christian perfection, he is 
not on this account to be at once pronounced 
guilty of presumption ; nor do those who differ 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Prcaching. 45 

from and censure him, necessarily surpass him in 
humility. He may reply, perhaps, to such a 
censure, by asking, what parts of our duty are im¬ 
possible to be performed ? how that can be called a 
duty , which is beyond the possibility of fulfilment ? 
on what days we should omit, as vain and pre¬ 
sumptuous, that prayer in the Te Deum in which 
we beseech the Lord to “ keep us this day without 
sin P ” and whether it be meant either that God 
has required of us something beyond what He 
enables us to perform, or that there is some Chris¬ 
tian virtue which He does not require of us ? 

I am not, it is to be observed, giving any opinion 
as to the tenet in question, further than to vindi¬ 
cate those who maintain it from being, necessarily, 
guilty of presumption; and to point out that the 
opposite opinion does not necessarily imply hu¬ 
mility. 

On this point I will take the liberty of citing a 
passage from a former work:— 

“ It is not, in any case, the belief that exemption 
from error is, either partially or completely, attain¬ 
able, that leads to arrogance or presumptuous care¬ 
lessness; but, the belief of the individual that he 
has attained it, or, that one who shall have 


46 Bangers arising from [essay i. 

attained it, may know with certainty that he has 
done so. 

“If a man believes, for instance, that there 
may be some human actions so performed, under 
the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit, as to be 
completely virtuous, — free from all admixture of 
sin,—in short, perfect,—this belief, whether agree¬ 
able or not to the fact, can have no tendency to 
make him conceited or careless, provided he always 
maintains that no action, even though it should 
really be of this description, can be (by Man) 
known with infallible certainty to be such. 

“ On the other hand, one who entertains the 
opposite opinion, may yet, conceivably, be deficient 
in humility and in watchfulness. For he may hold, 
that every, the best, human action, is, and ever 
must be, alloyed with some mixture of human 
infirmities; and yet he may without inconsistency, 
believe that some part, or even the whole, of his 
own conduct, is, with all its imperfections, as near 
an approach to perfection as can possibly be ex¬ 
pected of such a Being as Man. And whatever he 
may profess, even with the most sincere intention, 
he will not really be either mortified or alarmed at 
the thought of his not having attained a degree of 


47 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Preaching. 

perfection which he holds to be morally impos¬ 
sible. 

“ Many persons persuade both others and them¬ 
selves, that they are sufficiently cultivating Christian 
humility, 3 " by dwelling much on the weakness and 
depravity of human nature, on the numerous temp¬ 
tations which beset us, and on the errors and sins 
which every man must be expected to fall into. 
And if they are reminded that, according to the 
Scriptures, provision is made by divine grace, for 
purifying and strengthening our nature, and guard¬ 
ing us against temptation, they will often reply, 
Yes, but after all, every one does fall into many 
sins. Now, however true this may be, and to 
whatever extent, still the consideration of it does 
not necessarily produce vigilance and humility. 
The kind of self-abasement thus generated is the 
same we feel when acknowledging man’s inability 

* A well-known little book, entitled “ Hymns for Infant 
Minds,” (I believe by some of the Taylor family,) contains 
(Nos. 11 and 12) a better practical description of Christian 
Humility, and its opposite, than I ever met with in so small a 
compass. Though very intelligible and touching to a mere 
child, a man of the most mature understanding, if not quite 
destitute of the virtue in question, may be the wiser and the 
better for it. 


48 


Bangers arising from 


[essay x. 


to ‘ add a cubit to his stature/ or to f remove 
mountains/ or to foretel future events. No one is 
much ashamed, or put on his guard, by a con¬ 
sciousness of being no better than what, he is 
persuaded, the wisest and best of his species must be. 

“ However far, in point of fact, sinless perfec¬ 
tion may be from being attainable, it is not our 
deficiency in anything that we regard as ^attain¬ 
able, but in what we regard as attainable , that 
tends to make us humble and diligent. The pro¬ 
visions of divine assistance which have been made, 
do, as we see but too plainly, in many instances 
fail, more or less, of their object, through man’s 
negligence or perverseness : it may be true that 
they never do, or will, completely succeed in attain¬ 
ing that object; but still, it is not so far forth as 
we feel assured they will fail , but so far forth as 
we believe that they may succeed in that object, 
that our zeal and watchfulness are excited. 

“ The danger of arrogance then is incurred, not 
by any one’s opinion, generally , on this point, (whe¬ 
ther true or false,) but, by his confidence respecting 
himself :—his belief that he either knows , or may 
hereafter in this present life, know, that he is 
perfect. 1 If we say that we have no sin, we 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Preaching . 49 

deceive ourselves/ would be not the less true and 
important, even on the supposition that any one of 
us actually had completely subdued, by divine help, 
all sin : for he would not be enabled to know it, 
nor authorized to say it. < I know nothing (says 
Paul) by myself; (i. e. against myself; ohSev 
€/xavrw <Tvvot$a) ‘ yet am I not hereby justified, but 
he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge 
nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who 
both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, 
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts ; 
and then shall every man have [his] praise of God.' 
If one man is confident that the moon is inhabited, 
and the other, that it is not, though one of these 
assertions must be in itself true, both of these men 
would alike ‘ deceive themselves/ by pronouncing 
with certainty, where they could have no certain 
knowledge.” 7 

Nor does the consideration that the human race 
are fallen from a state of innocency which our first 
parents possessed, make any difference as to the 
point now before us. A man may indeed feel 
shame and contrition on account of some deficiency 
which is noiv unavoidable, but which he himself had 

y Essays, First Series, pp. 360—2. (Note.) 

E 


50 Danger arising from [essay i. 

originally brought on, by his own misconduct. 
For instance, a poor day-labourer quite incapable of 
raising himself above that condition, may, if he had 
once been a man of good property, which he squan¬ 
dered away, be deeply ashamed of his present 
poverty, and full of remorse for his misconduct; 
but if he were born to poverty through the miscon¬ 
duct of some remote ancestors , who had squandered 
away their estate, it will be at least a very different 
kind of shame that he will feel; he will feel 
ashamed, if at all, of his ancestors rather than him - 
self; and will feel perhaps a discontented mortifi¬ 
cation at his present lot, mingled with bitter indig¬ 
nation at their misconduct. 

Such, I fear, is but too much like the kind of 
feeling with which the subtle Tempter of Man 
leads some Christians to contemplate their present 
condition as resulting from the fall of our first 
parents. He would fain persuade us that we ought 
to feel,—and that we do feel,—penitent for the sin 
of Adam; and by this false and imaginary peni¬ 
tence, to lose sight of what we really may feel, and 
really ought to feel, for actual sins of our own. 

Evils indeed, or dangers , may be felt, or may 
be apprehended, by us, as the consequence of 


sect. 6.] Injudicious Preaching. 51 

another man’s fault: but no metaphysical subtilties 
can bring us really to feel,—though they may bring 
us to fancy we feel, 2 —any of that real remorse and 
personal self-abasement, for his sin, which we should 
and may feel for an actual transgression of our own. 

The true lesson of humility which the history of 
Adam’s fall is designed to teach us, is, self-distrust 
and watchfulness, combined with a disposition 
anxiously to look for, and meekly to rely on the 
promised assistance of the “ Spirit which helpetli 
our infirmities.” The history teaches us that even 
if Adam and Eve had never been, themselves, ex¬ 
posed to such a trial as they did undergo, we, their 
descendants, resembling them, of course, in cha¬ 
racter, and where we differ, not differing (naturally) 
for the better, should, in like circumstances, have 
yielded, as they did, to the wiles of the same 
Tempter, whom our unaided powers are insufficient 
to resist. 

It may be worth while here to observe incident¬ 
ally, that some preachers in describing the condition 
of Man before the Fall, are accustomed, inadver¬ 
tently, to use a kind of language likely to convey 

z This kind of self-deceit is treated of in the Elements of 
Rhetoric, p. ii. ch. i. § 2. 

E 2 


52 


Banger arising from 


[essay I. 


to the unreflective hearer a notion which I presume 
they cannot intend. I mean that they describe not 
only the innocence , but the purity and holiness, of 
Man’s original character, in such terms as might be 
understood to imply that frailty was introduced at 
the Fall, and did not exist till after the eating of 
the forbidden fruit. Now it is true that there is 
no danger of any one’s believing, in the strict 
sense of that word, a contradiction in terms: and 
that a moment’s reflection must make it clear to 
the capacity of a child, that Adam could not have 
transgressed if he had not been frail in a certain 
degree, however less that degree of frailty than 
ours. But still, such language may produce con¬ 
fusion and perplexity in the minds of learners ; and 
may furnish adversaries with a plausible objection 
against our religion, as containing a self-contra¬ 
diction. For that it is a self-contradiction to speak 
of the liability to yield to temptation having been 
originally produced by yielding to temptation—the 
cause by the effect,—no man in his senses can 
doubt. In whatever sense it is that man was said 
to be “ created in Gods image,” and that all things 
that were made were pronounced “ very good,”— 
whatever these expressions do mean, it is plain what 


sect. 7.] Injudicious Preaching. 53 

they do not mean; they cannot mean, (as the 
narrative proves) that our first parents were of such 
a character as to withstand temptation to dis¬ 
obedience. 

Innocent indeed, they undoubtedly were, till 
they had sinned; for that is the very meaning of 
the word “ innocentbut it is worth remarking 
that even innocence was lost before the forbidden 
fruit had been actually tasted; for since we all know 
that sin consists, not in the outward bodily act, 
but in the intention of the mind, it is plain they 
had committed the sin as soon as the purpose of 
the act was fully formed. This was known even to 
the heathen moralist by the light of nature : 

“ Nam scelus intra se taciturn qui cogitat ullum 
Eacti crimen habet.” 

A man is, morally, a murderer, at the moment he 
pulls the trigger of a gun with intent to assassinate; 
and that, not the less, even should he chance to 
miss his aim. a 

§ 7. Thirdly, men should be warned not to 
conclude too hastily that they are practising humility 
by talking much, and in strong terms, (whether to 
See First Charge, Note A, p. 27. 


54 Dangers arising from [essay i. 

their fellow-mortals, or in their addresses to God) 
of their own ignorance, weakness, and sinfulness. 
It sometimes happens that Christians, from—I will 
not say an excessive , but—a mis-directed, fear of not 
sufficiently humbling themselves, are led to use 
expressions stronger than their genuine feelings, 
and to confess greater sinfulness than they are 
sincerely conscious of. b But in this they are quite 
erroneous, even if what they confess should really 
be, in point of fact, the true state of the case. A 
man is in a far more hopeful state, who confesses 
even only half the sinfulness that really belongs to 
him, and does this in perfect sincerity, and with 
genuine repentance and desire to amend, (since this 
man is in a way to obtain, hereafter, a fuller insight 
into himself,) than one who confesses, with his lips 
only, the whole of what is really true, but which he 
does not thoroughly believe. It breeds a habit of 
insincerity, to say anything, however true in itself, 
of which we have not a hearty conviction at the 
moment. And it is a most perilous self-deceit to 
encourage in ourselves anything of insincere pro¬ 
fession ; and to measure our penitence and self- 

b “ It is far better to strike the mark, than to shoot beyond 
it.” —Bp. Sumner, A post. Preaching. 


sect. 7.] Injudicious Preaching. 55 

humiliation by what we utter, and not by what we 
sincerely feel. 

This is the case in respect of our private 
devotions. As for the practice of speaking much 
of our sinfulness of disposition, before our fellow- 
men, it too often proceeds not from true humility, 
but from pride in disguise. It is one mode in 
which “ Satan transforms himself into an angel of 
light,” by leading us thus to make an indirect 
boast of our own humility, by speaking before 
others of our own sinfulness, not meaning to be 
understood that they are less sinful than ourselves, 
but that we are more humble . c 

Of course, when there is any particular act in 
which we are conscious of having wronged our 
neighbour, it is our duty then to confess to him 
that we have wronged him, and to ask his for¬ 
giveness. This is a real point of Christian humility ; 
and a great trial of it it is ; far more than the most 
liighflown general lamentation over the sinfulness of 
our nature. 

And again, when we are consulting some con¬ 
fidential adviser, as to any part of our conduct, we 

c “ I thank my God for my humility .”—Richard III. 
Act 2. Sc, 1, 


56 


Danger arising from [essay i. 

are right (supposing him worthy of being an adviser 
at all) in opening our hearts to him, and confessing 
the faults and infirmities which we are consulting 
him how to shake off and counteract. And in 
giving advice also to a friend, we may have occasion 
to supply him with a useful warning, by freely 
confessing to him the snares in which we have been 
entangled. 

But except in these cases, confessions of sin had 
better be made to God only; and to Him they 
should be made with perfect sincerity. For though 
there is no danger of our deceiving Him, there is 
great danger of our deceiving ourselves. 

§ 8. Moreover, men should be warned not to be 
deceived into imagining that there is any genuine 
Christian humility in the strongest conviction of sin , 
without an earnest endeavour to amend in the 
most unqualified and earnest confession of un¬ 
worthiness, which they are content to utter, and to 
purpose continuing to repeat, day after day, and 
year after year, without wishing, and seeking, and 
striving diligently, that each day and year may find 
them better Christians than the last—more grown, 
and “ growing, in grace, and in the knowledge of 


sect. 8.] Injudicious Preaching. 57 

our Lord Jesus Christ/’ and more fit to be a branch 
of Him, the true Vine, by “ glorifying the Father, 
in bringing forth much fruit.” 

There is no true humility, without shame, 
mortification, and displeasure with ourselves, at 
the thought of our faults and imperfections. This 
shame and dissatisfaction, if rightly directed, will 
lead us earnestly to seek amendment and improve¬ 
ment, through the promised help of “ God, who 
worketh in us.” Those painful feelings will then be 
counterbalanced by the cheering consciousness of 
some actual advancement, and the hope of still 
further advancement in our Christian course : regret 
and despondency will be more and more exchanged 
for animated, and cheerful, and hopeful exertion. 

But if you suffer yourself (a man should be 
warned) to be satisfied, even for a short time, with 
having “ disburdened your conscience,” (as the 
phrase is,) by a very full and strongly expressed 
acknowledgment of your own unworthiness;—if 
you rest even but a short time on this confession 
of sins, the thought of your sins will create con¬ 
tinually less and less shame and uneasiness, the 
more you dwell upon it, and familiarize your mind 
to the idea; till at length you become utterly and 


58 


Danger arising from 


[essay I. 


incurably callous to those feelings, and to the desire 
of amendment, which is the proper fruit of them. 
It is the proverbial effect of familiarity to breed 
careless indifference. Any one who, on first finding 
himself unexpectedly living in a situation where he 
is exposed7 either to great danger, (as at the foot of 
a volcano, or in the vicinity of the plague,) or to 
disgusting filth, squalid discomfort, and barbarian 
rudeness of manners;—any one, who, so situated, 
is at first struck with alarm, horror, or disgust, will 
either set himself earnestly, to escape from, or to 
remedy the evils, or if he does not, will gradually, 
from custom, become so reconciled to them, as to 
feel no longer anything of the shock he experienced 
at first. d And in like manner the more you 
accustom yourself (we should urge) to think of any 
sin, or of any neglect of duty, without accompanying 
every such thought with an effort to amend and 
improve, the less shame,—the less abhorrence of 
what is wrong,—the less regret for your own 
deficiencies,—you will feel, every day you are thus 
occupied; and the great enemy of your soul will 
have been leading you to fancy that you were daily 


d See Butler’s Analogy, part i. chap. 5. 


sect. 9.] Injudicious Preaching . 59 

exercising yourself in humility , while you were in 
fact exercising yourself in getting rid of all true 
humility, and in hardening yourself against virtuous 
shame and profitable self-reproach. 

§ 9. It may be added, lastly, that there is not 
necessarily any real humility in a disparagement of 
the human understanding —the intellectual powers, 
as constrasted with the affections and other feelings. 
“ The pride of human reason ” is a phrase very 
much in the mouth of some persons, who seem to 
think they are effectually humbling themselves by 
feeling (or sometimes by merely professing) an 
excessive distrust of all exercise of the intellect , while 
they resign themselves freely to the guidance of 
what they call the heart; that is, their prejudices, 
passions, inclinations, and fancies. But the feelings 
are as much a part of mans constitution as his 
reason. Every part of our nature will equally lead 
us wrong, if operating uncontrolled. If indeed 
a man employs his reason, not in ascertaining what 
God has revealed in Scripture, but in conjecturing 
what might be, or ought to be, the divine dis¬ 
pensations, he is employing his reason wrongly, 
and will err accordingly. But this is not the only 


60 


Banger arising from 


[essay I. 


source of error. He who, to avoid this, gives up 
the use of his reason, and believes or disbelieves, 
adopts or rejects, according to what suits his feelings, 
taste, will, and fancy, is no less an idolater of him¬ 
self than the other; his feelings, &c. being a part 
of himself, no less than his reason. We may, if we 
please, call the one of these a “ Rationalist/’ and 
the other an “ Irrationalist/’ but there is as much 
of the pride of self-idolatry in the one as in the 
other. The Greeks and Romans were indeed 
wretched idolaters, in their adoration of the 
beautiful statues of Jupiter and Minerva; but the 
Egyptians, who adored those of an ox and a hawk, 
were not the less idolaters. The Jews, relying on 
the decision of learned rabbis, and the Pythagorean, 
who yielded implicit reverence to the dictates of the 
sage, did not more exalt man into an oracle, in the 
place of God, than the Mussulmans, who pay a like 
reverence to idiots and madmen. Each part of our 
nature should be duly controlled, and kept within 
its own proper province; and the whole “ brought 
into subjection to Christ/’ and dedicated to Him. 
But there is no real Christian humility—though 
there be debasement—in renouncing the exercise of 
human reason, to follow the dictates of human 


sect. 9.] Injudicious Preaching. 61 

feeling. The apostle’s precept is, “ in malice be ye 
children ; but in understanding be ye men.” 

The error I have been adverting to is worthy of 
notice, only from the plausibility it derives from 
the authority of some persons who really do possess 
cultivated intellectual powers; and who therefore, 
when they declaim against the pride of human reason, 
are understood not to be disparaging an advantage 
of which they are destitute. 6 They appear volun¬ 
tarily divesting themselves of what many would feel 
a pride in; and thus often conceal from others, as 
well as from themselves, the spiritual pride with 
which they not only venerate their own feelings and 
prejudices, but even load with anathemas all who 

e It may be observed by the way, that tbe persons who 
use this kind of language never do, in fact, divest themselves 
of any human advantages they may chance to possess. What¬ 
ever learning or argumentative powers any of them possess 
(and some of them do possess much) I have always found 
them ready to put forth, in any controversy they may be 
engaged in, without shewing much tenderness for an opponent 
who may be less gifted. It is only when learning and argu¬ 
ment make against them, that they declaim against the pride 
of intellect; and deprecate an appeal to reason when its 
decision is unfavourable. So that the sacrifice which they 
appear to make, is one which in reality, they do not make , but 
only require (when it suits their purpose) from others. 


62 Banger arising from [essay i. 

presume to dissent from them. It is a prostration, 
not of man’s self before God, but of one part of 
himself before another. This kind of humiliation 
is like the idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness, 
“ The people stripped themselves of their golden 
ornaments that were upon them, and cast them into 
the fire ; and there came out this calf.” 

Such cautions as the above I do most sincerely 
believe to be needful for every Christian instructor; 
at least for every one who does not confine himself 
to the delivery of mere moral essays, keeping out 
of sight the great evangelical truths ;—for every one 
who is not seeking to make the vine-branch bear 
fruit when it has no communication with the vine. 

It is I trust almost superfluous for me to add, in 
conclusion, that I have been suggesting these cau¬ 
tions not as to persons justly liable to such imputa¬ 
tions as I have alluded to, from really holding, and 
meaning to teach, the erroneous notions described. 
The contrary is indeed implied in the very advice 
I have presumed to offer. For it would be not 
only useless, but absurd, to point out to a man 
who should be actually a maintainer, for instance, 
of antinomian (or of any other) tenets, the precau¬ 
tions by which we may guard our hearers against 


sect. 9.] Injudicious Preaching. 


63 


those tenets. Any persons accordingly (if there be 
any) who do maintain antinomian tenets, though of 
course they will not approve of what I have been 
saying, and indeed may be expected to be dis¬ 
pleased with it, if the reasons I have urged shall 
appear to be weighty, yet must perceive that I have 
not been addressing myself to them. And of the 
rest, I trust that I shall at least have given no 
offence to any reasonable mind, and that my sug¬ 
gestions will be received in the same spirit of 
candour and charity with which they are offered. 


64 


Note. 


Note, page 41. 

“ It is sometimes considered as a proof of the advan¬ 
tage to be obtained from the habit which I am here 
presuming to discourage, that such preaching generally 
proves attractive to the lower classes. This, however, 
may he accounted for, without furnishing any justifica¬ 
tion of the practice. For, first, the lower classes, unless 
they are truly religious, usually are gross sinners, and, 
therefore, are neither surprised nor shocked at being 
supposed so themselves, and at the same time feel a sort 
of pleasure which need not be encouraged, when they 
hear their superiors brought down to the same level: 
and, secondly, it seems to furnish them with a sort of 
excuse for their sins, to find that they are so universal 
and so much to he expected of human nature. 

“ The considerate minister will not court such dan¬ 
gerous applause : there is no edification communicated 
by exciting feelings of disgust on one side, and of 
malignant exultation on the other.” — Bp. Sumner’s 
Apostol. Preaching , p. 136. 


ESSAY II. 


ON 

THE DANGERS 

ARISING FROM 

NEGLECT OF INSTRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN 
EVIDENCES, 

AND FROM 

PARTY-SPIRIT AMONG CHRISTIANS. 


V 





TO THE 

HON. AND RIGHT REY. CHARLES LINDSAY, 

LORD BISHOP OF KILDARE, 


THE SUBSTANCE OF WHICH WAS FIRST PUBLISHED AT HIS REQUEST, 


IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 


AS A TRIBUTE OF SINCERE REGARD AND ESTEEM. 





ESSAY II. 

ON THE DANGERS ARISING FROM NEGLECT OF IN¬ 
STRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, AND FROM 
PARTY-SPIRIT AMONG CHRISTIANS. 

§ 1. Any general exhortation to active and 
steady exertion in our several duties, — whether 
those of Christians universally, or of Christian- 
ministers, though listened to, perhaps with interest, 
and received with approbation, will usually be too 
vague to lead to a useful application in practice, 
either by those who are, or by those who are not, 
already engaged sincerely and heartily in the dis¬ 
charge of their duties. To the one, such an exhor¬ 
tation will generally be superfluous; and to the 
other, ineffectual. 

It is easier, indeed, to give general satisfaction, 
or at least, to avoid giving offence to any one, if we 
keep within these vague generalities; because such 




70 


Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

remarks and precepts will naturally be applied, (if 
applied at all,) by each hearer, according to his own 
previously adopted views, and his own habitual 
practice. To recommend, in general terms, sound 
doctrine and judicious conduct, would be, in fact, 
to recommend to each man liis own; or at least 
what he himself thinks ought to be recommended : 
and this would therefore be applied, equally, and 
in opposite ways, by individuals, differing perhaps 
the most widely, in doctrine or conduct; and might 
be, to both, equally acceptable, and equally un¬ 
profitable. 

It was from these considerations that I took 
occasion, in the preceding Essay, to advert, (with¬ 
out, I trust, giving just cause of offence to any 
one,) to certain specific dangers to which our 
religion may be exposed, through an incautious 
use of some particular modes of expression;—a 
danger, both to our hearers, of their being led into 
such errors as we should ourselves be the first to 
deprecate; and, also, in respect of adversaries, of 
their being fortified in their hostility, and furnished 
with plausible grounds of censure and complaint. 

That Christianity has enemies, most persons 
must be well aware. That these, and persons 


sect. 1.] Instruction in Evidences . 71 

who are prepared to become such, are more numer¬ 
ous than is generally supposed, and are not un¬ 
likely, before long, to show themselves more openly 
and in greater force than at present, is my own 
decided opinion ; for which, but for the fear of 
entering on too long a digression, I could offer 
reasons founded on such evidence as may perhaps 
not have been brought before some of my readers, 
and which I cannot think they would regard as 
insignificant. But whether I am mistaken or not 
in this opinion, makes no difference in our duty and 
our responsibility. Should any of us live to see a 
destructive outbreak of infidelity, we shall yet,—if 
we shall have taken due precautions against it,—be 
accounted conquerors, by Him, our Master, who 
accepts the effort for the deed : and if again we are 
supine, or indiscreet and incautious, He will— 
whether the event take place or not, in our time, 
He will look, not to the event itself, but to our 
non-preparation. “ If the good-man of the house 
had known at what hour the thief would come, he 
would have watched : 5 — c< Be ye therefore ready; 
for ye know not the hour : ' :c Let your loins be 

girded about, and your lights burning.” 

Some persons are accustomed to designate as an 


72 


Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

alarmist, any one who expresses apprehensions such 
as these; and to remark, that there is always a 
cry of “ danger to the Church,” or “ danger to 
Christianity,” raised from time to time; by some, 
from genuine timidity, and by others, with politic 
design; and that consequently every such alarm is 
to be utterly disregarded, as a mere commonplace 
topic for declamation. Whether any such remarks 
are fairly applicable in the present instance, each 
must judge for himself, from the reasons that may 
come before him. Only, let it not be forgotten, 
that an evil is not necessarily altogether unreal, 
because it has often been feared without just cause ; 
and that apprehensions which at one time have 
proved groundless, may at another time be well- 
founded. The wolf does sometimes enter in and 
make havoc of the flock, although there have been 
many false alarms. 

About the beginning, for instance, of the French 
revolution, you well know that a considerable 
outbreak of infidelity did take place. And 
further back, about the time of the restoration of 
Charles II. a re-action resulting from the fanaticism 
of many extravagant enthusiasts who arose during 
the preceding civil war, produced effects which con- 


sect. 1.] Instruction in Evidences . 


n 


tinued long after, tending to shake men’s belief in 
revelation. You may see, for instance, in Butler’s 
prefatory advertisement to his Analogy, (and he 
does not appear to have been of a querulous or of a 
desponding turn,) that the author seems to consider 
himself as engaging on the unpopular side among 
the educated classes, in undertaking a defence of 
Christianity, and as having the prevailing prejudices 
of the reading portion of the Public in that age, 
against him. 

We must expect that from time to time, storms 
such as these will arise from various quarters, and 
will prevail with greater or less force, according to 
the several conjunctures : and though we are assured 
that the “ gates of death a shall not prevail against 
the Church,”—that is, that the Christian religion 
itself will never be overthrown—it must be remem¬ 
bered that this assurance does not extend to indi¬ 
vidual members of the Church : and that, as far as 
concerns individuals, the Christian faith does lie open 
to the danger of being overthrown —in their minds. 
We are responsible for the care with which we 

a "A.lr\q (not Teevva) which is rendered by the ambiguous 
word “ hell,” signifies “ death ’’—the “ grave.” 


74 


Danger from neglecting [essay ii. 

inquire into the causes of such a danger, and guard 
against the effects of them; so that we ourselves at 
least may as far as possible be “ pure from the blood 
of all men.” 

§ 2. I have said that various causes operate— 
and different ones at different periods, to produce a 
tendency towards infidelity. 

On the earlier of the two occasions just alluded 
to, I am inclined to think that the principal cause 
which operated, was, the extravagance and the intem¬ 
perate violence displayed by the religious parties,— 
especially the politico-religious parties—of that 
period; who had done all that could be done to 
weaken the foundations of the faith. They had 
done everything to draw off men’s attention from 
the evidence on which revelation rests, to points of 
controversy between Christians; and also, by their 
manner of conducting those controversies, they had 
contributed to hold up Christianity itself both to 
contempt and disgust, and at the same time to 
abhorrence and dread. 

If you look into the celebrated work of Hobbes, 
which excited so strong and general a sensation at 
the time, you will see the peculiar turn which infi- 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 75 

delity then took. Christianity— i. e. Christian faith 
maintained on sincere conviction, and not merely 
professed at the command of the Government for 
the time being—was evidently regarded by its 
opponents (in consequence of what they had seen) 
as an element of discord;—as a principle utterly 
irreconcilable with the peace and good order of 
society. They had been taught to consider it as 
bearing for its motto, “on earth, strife; ill-will 
towards men.” You may observe accordingly that 
as the religious parties alluded to had been for the 
most part politically turbulent, and connected with 
popular encroachments, so Hobbes, and most of that 
train of anti-christian writers who followed, even 
down to the time of Hume and Gibbon, were vehe¬ 
mently opposed to such encroachments,—highly 
anti-democratical,—and leaning towards the side of 
absolute monarchy. And hence it is, I suppose, 
that almost all of them seem to have addressed 
themselves, solely or chiefly, to the higher classes, 
and to have regarded the mass of the people as 
unfitted to have any voice or any opinion on the 
question; and as bound to acquiesce without inquiry 
into the religious system prescribed in each country 
by the rulers, till these should see fit to alter it. 


76 


Danger from neglecting [essay ii. 

And as the adversaries of Christianity took this 
course, so, its defenders were for the most part 
content to meet them on their own ground, and to 
make their appeal also to the higher classes. 15 

Neither the attacks on our religion, nor the evi¬ 
dences in its support, were, to any great extent, 
brought forward in a popular form, till near the close 
of the last century. On both sides, the learned 
(or those who professed to be such) seem to have 
agreed in this; that the mass of the people were to 
acquiesce in the decision of their superiors, and 
neither should, nor could, exercise their own minds 
on the question ; but were to stand by, like an un¬ 
unarmed population of serfs, awaiting the issue 
of a combat which is to decide who shall be their 
masters. 

You may take as an example the habitual tone of 
Dr. Johnson’s language, as recorded by the con¬ 
current testimony of all his biographers. Ready as 
he was to defend Christianity by arguments addressed 
to the more-educated classes, he always strenuously 

b Leslie’s work, in itself more adapted to popular use than 
any others of that day, seems yet to have been known solely 
or chiefly among the more educated classes, till near a century 
after its publication. 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 77 

inculcated the implicit acquiescence of the great 
mass of mankind (including those by no means in a 
state of mere barbarian ignorance,) in whatever they 
were told by their superiors. Adherence to the 
Christian faith, in the great body of Christians, in 
a civilized country, he urged, always on exactly the 
same grounds as would authorize, and indeed morally 
bind, a Mahometan or Hindoo, steadily to reject 
Christianity. 

When then a new conjuncture arose, and of a 
contrary character, the defenders of Christianity 
were, in great measure, taken unprepared. Dema¬ 
gogues arose, who instead of being fanatics, as in 
the time of our civil war, were infidels. Agreeing 
in their views of religion with Hobbes, and Hume, 
and Gibbon, they were, politically, in the opposite 
extreme ; and accordingly it was to a different class 
of hearers they addressed themselves. The People 
were invited to judge and to speak for themselves, 
and to assert their claims against the oppressions of 
priestcraft and aristocracy. The pretended “ Age 
of Reason,” and “ Rights of Man/’ went hand in 
hand. 

And then it was found that there had long been 
a lamentable deficiency (which several writers 


78 Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

stepped forward—at the eleventh hour, when the 
assault was actually made—to remedy)—a deficiency 
in the providing of popular instruction in the evi¬ 
dences of our faith: instruction addressed to the 
great mass of the Christian population ; who had 
been, in too many instances, left unfurnished with 
any means of “ giving a reason of their hope/’ 

The danger which, at the period alluded to, pro¬ 
duced so sudden and great an alarm, is one which 
I cannot consider as now at an end. For it is 
connected with that which is undoubtedly now in 
progress, and which I am convinced is a dangerous 
state of things—the diffusion of increased knowledge 
and intellectual culture among the mass of the people. 

Am I then,—it may be asked,—one of those who 
deprecate and would prevent the diffusion of educa¬ 
tion and of knowledge, and who regard ignorance 
as the best safeguard against infidelity ? 

Now, that we ought not, if we could, to stop the 
progress of knowledge, is a position about which 
some may have doubts, though I have none; but 
that we cannot, if we would, must be evident to 
every man of observation and common sense. 

To point out, that, on the whole, civilization is 
more favourable to true religion than barbarian 


79 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences . 

ignorance—that it is in the darkness more than in 
the light, that error is likely to pass for truth, and 
superstition for genuine Christianity—all this, besides 
that a full discussion of the subject would exceed 
my limits, is the less necessary to be here dwelt on, 
as relating, in fact, to a speculative question; since 
it is not in our power to keep the people per¬ 
manently in ignorance. We may a little retard, or 
a little accelerate, the current of advancing know¬ 
ledge ; and we may materially alter its course ; but 
to stop it, is far beyond our power. And it is by 
directing, not by retarding, the progress of intel¬ 
lectual culture, that we shall best serve the great 
cause we are engaged in; because the evils which 
are often attributed to excess in quantity of the 
knowledge diffused,—to what is called “ over-educa¬ 
tion” of the people—arise, in reality, from misdirected 
education,—from an ill-proportioned growth of the 
mental powers, and ill-balanced attainments in 
knowledge. 0 

c It should be observed too, that such evils are both the 
most apt to arise, and also the most extensively noxious, when 
the minds of a vast mass of grossly-ignorant people are acted 
on (as in France, at the time of the revolution,) by a small 
number of intelligent, and educated, hut not well-educated 


men. 


80 Banger from neglecting [essay it. 

When I speak, therefore, of the advancement of 
knowledge throughout the community, as a dan¬ 
gerous thing, I mean that it is such, in the same 
sense and in the same manner that bodily growth is 
dangerous. The growth of the body is agreeable 
to the order of nature, and is in itself a good ; but 
it calls for discreet vigilance, lest it lead to deformity 
by becoming irregular. 

On this subject I have made some remarks (which 
I will take the liberty of here repeating) in a work 
published some years ago. 

The dangers, I observed, accompanying the 
progress of society in knowledge and intelligence, 
“ do not arise from the too great amount, or too 
great diffusion, of mental cultivation, but from mis¬ 
directed and disproportionate cultivation. And this 
misdirection does not consist so much in the impart¬ 
ing of knowledge which had better be withheld 
from a particular class, or the exercise of faculties 
which, in them, had better be left dormant, as in 
the violation of proportion —the neglect of preserving 
a due balance between different studies and different 
mental powers. No illustration will better explain 
my meaning than that of the bodily growth. A 
child neglected at the period of growth, will become 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 


81 


ricketty and deformed, from some of the limbs 
receiving, perhaps no absolutely undue increase, but 
a disproportioned increase; while others, do not 
indeed shrink, nor perhaps cease to grow, but do 
not increase at the same rate. In such a case, we 
sometimes say that the head or the trunk is grown 
too large for the limbs; meaning, however, not abso¬ 
lutely, but relatively;—not that the growth of one 
part is in itself excessive, but that the other parts 
have not kept pace with it. And though such a 
distortion is worse even than a general dwarfish and 
stunted growth, it is obvious that a full and regular 
development of all the parts, is far preferable to 
either; and also, that it is, when Nature is making 
an effort towards growth, not only more desirable, 
but more practicable, to make that an equable 
and well-proportioned growth, than to repress it 
altogether. We should endeavour rather to 
strengthen the weak parts, than to weaken the 
strong. But if we take no pains to do either the one 
or the other, it is plain that both the corporeal, and 
also the intellectual and moral, expansion, must lead 
to disease and deformity. 

“ As far as relates to Religion, the most impor¬ 
tant point of all, both in itself, and as far as relates 

G 


82 Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

to the question now more immediately before us, I 
will avail myself of the words of a recent publication, 
which express sentiments in which I wholly coincide. d 

“ ‘ A vast and momentous moral crisis is rapidly 
approaching—the rise of Education throughout the 
mass of the People. Amidst pretensions to sensible 
spiritual communion, on the one hand, and a careful 
avoidance of recognizing any divine interposition, on 
the other—amidst theories invented or imported, 
that would subject the sacred volume to the rules of 
mere ordinary criticism, opposed only in partial and 
personal controversy—a large portion of the com¬ 
munity, which has been hitherto uneducated, is 
suddenly roused into free inquiry, and furnished 
with ability to perceive all that darkens and deforms 
the subject; but—it must be owned and lamented— 
not furnished with that spiritual training, which 
alone enables the inquirer to see his way through it. 

“ 4 It is not that the people at large are without 
any religious and moral instruction—it is not that 
they have absolutely less now than heretofore—they 
have probably more. But the progress of spiritual 
and worldly knowledge is unequal; and it is this 
inequality of progress that constitutes the danger. 
d Hinds on Inspiration. 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 83 

It is a truth which cannot be too strongly insisted on, 
that if the powers of the intellect be strengthened 
by the acquisition of science, professional learning, 
or general literature—in short, secular knowledge, 
of whatever kind,—without being proportionately 
exercised on spiritual subjects, its susceptibility of 
the objections which may be urged against Revela¬ 
tion will be increased, without a corresponding 
increase in the ability to remove them. Conscious 
of having mastered certain difficulties that attach to 
subjects which he has studied, one so educated finds 
it impossible to satisfy himself about difficulties in 
Revelation ; Revelation not having received from 
him the same degree of attention; and forgetful of 
the^mequal distribution of his studies, charges the 
fault on the subject. Doubt, discontent, and con¬ 
temptuous infidelity, (more frequently secret than 
avowed,) are no unusual results. It seems, indeed, 
to have been required of us by the Author of Reve¬ 
lation, that his word should have a due share of our 
intellect, as well as our heart; and that the dispro¬ 
portionate direction of our talents, no less than of 
our affections, to the things of this world, should 
disqualify us for faith. What is sufficient sacred 
knowledge for an uneducated person, becomes in- 
g 2 


84 


Danger from neglecting [essay ii. 

adequate for him when educated; even as he would 
be crippled and deformed, if the limb which was 
strong and well-proportioned when he was a child, 
should have undergone no progressive change as his 
bodily stature increased, and he grew into manhood. 
We must not think to satisfy the divine law, by 
setting apart the same absolute amount as the tithe 
of our enlarged understanding, which was due from 
a narrower and more barren field of intellectual 
culture. 

“ ‘ Nor let it be imagined that this is true only 
of minds highly gifted, and accomplished in science, 
elegant literature, or professional pursuits. It is 
not the absolute amount of worldly acquirements, 
but the proportion that they bear to our religious 
attainments, be these what they may, that is to be 
dreaded. If the balance of intellectual exercise 
be not preserved, the almost certain result will be, 
either an utter indifference to religion; or else, that 
slow-corroding scepticism, which is fostered by the 
consciousness, that difficulties corresponding to 
those 'that continue to perplex our view of Revela¬ 
tion, have, in our other pursuits, been long sur¬ 
mounted and removed/ ” 

We have, therefore, to guard against, with equal 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 85 

care, the two opposite errors of two different descrip¬ 
tions of men. The one error is, “ that of such as 
deprecate the increase and spread of intellectual 
culture, as in itself an evil, though an evil which, 
after all, they can only murmur at, but not effectu¬ 
ally repress; and look back with vain regret on 
those ages of primitive rudeness and torpid igno¬ 
rance, which they cannot recall: the other, that of 
those whose views, though more cheerful, are not 
more enlightened;—who hail with joy every symp¬ 
tom of any kind of advancement, without at all 
troubling themselves to secure an equable and well- 
balanced advancement; or apprehending, or even 
thinking of, any probable mischief from the want of 
it. The one party sighs for the restoration of 
infancy; the other exults in the approach of a 
distorted maturity.” e 

That danger, then, to the Christian faith,— 
I mean, faith as existing in the minds of individuals, 
which began to excite so much alarm about half a 
century back, is, as I have said, far from being at 
an end. While some call it the danger of know¬ 
ledge, and others, the danger of ignorance ; they 
both (as far as they are right) mean the same thing. 
e Pol. Economy, Lect. viii. p. 217. 


86 Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

For if, while men acquire information, and exercise 
their minds in examining evidence, on other sub¬ 
jects, they remain ignorant and uninquiring in what 
pertains to the evidences of their religion, the results 
must be what experience as well as reason might 
have enabled us to foresee. 

And yet all attempts to supply popular evidence 
of Christianity, some persons deprecate as absurd, 
and as hazardous, on the ground that the unlearned 
cannot comprehend it, and that it would suggest 
more doubts than it could allay; as if in such an 
age as this, men could be secured from ever hearing 
the truth of Christianity doubted ! f Such persons, 
in the endeavour to escape a danger that is unavoid¬ 
able, incur a double danger on the other side : first, 
by leaving the mass of the people without evidence 
for the truth of our Religion; and also, by pro¬ 
claiming that it has no evidence accessible to the 
unlearned. 

For, the danger of infidelity thus arising," will 
not be confined to the humbler classes of the com- 

f If these persons would make the requisite inquiries, they 
would ascertain, as I have done , the existence, among the 
labouring classes, of Infidel clubs, reckoning their members by 
hundreds. 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences. 87 

munity, but will extend itself to alb in consequence 
of one peculiar feature which characterizes the 
Christian religion, and which is one of those that 
distinguish it from almost all Pagan systems. I 
mean, the circumstance that Christianity professes 
to be both a religion founded on evidence , and a 
religion calculated for the great mass of mankind. 
It professes to be, (not like the paganism of the 
ancients) two systems, one for the learned, and 
another for the vulgar; but one religion, claiming 
to be understood, and to be received on evidence 
(though not necessarily the same evidence to all) 
by men of all ranks. Both Jesus Himself and his 
apostles appeal to prophetic books which were in 
the hands of their hearers, and to miracles openly 
performed, as testifying that He came from God. 
Of his resurrection indeed (as well as of several 
other miracles) some were eye-witnesses, and others, 
not. He pronounces a blessing on those who did 
“ not see Him after his resurrection, and yet 
believedwhich was the case of the converts the 
apostles made. But all were made converts by 
evidence accessible to themselves. And there is 
no hint given throughout the New Testament, that 
this state of things was hereafter to be reversed, and 


88 


Banger from neglecting [essay ii. 

that men were to be required in future ages to 
receive or retain Christianity on the same grounds 
on which the Pagans were taught to adhere to 
tlieir religion. These were taught to reverence it 
as the religion of their ancestors;—as inculcated by 
their superiors in wisdom or in rank;—as a part of 
the constitution of their Country;—and as bene¬ 
ficial to the community, inasmuch as the fear of 
the gods withheld men from crime,, and enforced 
the fulfilment of their duties. 8 

The Christian teachers overthrew these religions, 
by an appeal to evidence ; and to evidence accessible 
to their hearers; whom they exhorted to be “ always 
ready to give a reason of their hope.” 

If then it should be made to appear that Christi¬ 
anity cannot make good these its pretensions,—that 
it professes to be, while it is not, a religion address¬ 
ing itself to the rational conviction of the mass of 
the people,—this alone, would be sufficient to 
overthrow the belief of its divine origin. For it 
will be deemed, and justly deemed, incredible, that 
the Deity should have erred in his calculations, and 
should have given a revelation designed for a certain 


g See Note B, at the end of this Essay. 


sect. 2.] Instruction in Evidences, 89 

purpose, which purpose it is in itself incapable of 
answering. 

The danger then (it should be observed) to which 
I am now adverting, is not that of a mere want of 
adequate evidence, but something distinct from, and 
beyond this; the danger, namely, of a positive 
contrary presumption arising. It is not merely that 
men to whom sufficient evidence has not been fur¬ 
nished, will be likely, themselves, to reject what 
has not been proved to them; but that men of all 
classes—the learned as well as the unlearned—will 
be likely to regard it as a positive evidence against 
the religion, that it professes to be calculated for 
mankind in general, and designed to claim their 
rational belief, while its defenders themselves con¬ 
fess that this object cannot be accomplished. 

To set forth, therefore, popular evidences of 
Christianity is incumbent both on the ministers 
of the Gospel, and on all who are, or who have the 
opportunity of being, dispensers of Christian in¬ 
struction; not merely in order to confirm and 
protect the faith of the great Body of the People, 
but also, in order to vindicate our own from the 
charge of inconsistency. And if Christians in the 
time of the apostle Peter were required by him to 


90 


Banger arising from [essay II. 

be prepared to “ give an answer to those who should 
ask them a reason of the hope that was in them/’ 
I know not how a Christian minister in these days 
can stand acquitted, who neglects to provide both 
himself and his People with the means of giving 
such a reason ; or, still more, who discourages and 
derides all attempts to give effect to the Apostle’s 
admonition. 11 

§ 3. The other danger, which I formerly alluded 
to—that arising from the odium and contempt 
thrown upon Christianity by the intemperate ex¬ 
cesses and fierce contentions of religious parties— 
especially politico-religious parties—this also is one 
from which these times are, unhappily, very far 
from being exempt. 

h A little tract entitled “ Lessons on Christian Evidences,” 
is an attempt to supply the want alluded to. It was drawn 
up, jointly, by myself and the late Bishop Dickinson; and 
the Lessons appeared first in successive numbers of the Saturday 
Magazine; and were afterwards published separately by 
Mr. Parker (West Strand), and also by the Christian Know¬ 
ledge Society. The tract was subsequently published in 
French at Lausanne, and in Italian, at Lugano. It has also 
been reprinted, with a few unimportant alterations, and widely 
circulated, by the Irish National-Education-Board. 


sect. 3 f ] Party-Spirit among Christians. 91 

The nature and origin of party-spirit,—the evils 
arising from it in religious matters, and the conduct 
by which we should endeavour to avert or to miti¬ 
gate those evils,—I discussed at large, in a treatise 
on the subject published some years ago/ To 
attempt giving even a brief summary of what I 
have there said, would exceed the limits of the 
present occasion; and after all, would be, to some, 
perhaps, superfluous, and to others, unsatisfactory. 
I will therefore only advert particularly to one 
point, which, in that treatise, though distinctly 
noticed, is not, I think, so prominently put forward 
as it should have been, and dwelt on as furnishing 
a practical maxim of easy application. It is this : 
that party-spirit, in that sense in which I have 
spoken of it as a thing to be wholly renounced and 
sedulously shunned in religious matters, consists 
in a general , indefinite conformity to the views 
and practices of some party; — a zeal for the 
advancement of that party and the promotion of 
their objects, generally , and without limitation 
either of the time or of the objects themselves. 

There is no party-spirit (in the strict sense of 
the word) necessarily generated by the forming of 
1 Bampton Lectures for 1822. 


92 


Banger arising from [essay ii. 

a combination with others for fixed and definite 
objects, to be pursued by certain specified means, 
and under regulations distinctly laid down, and 
strictly observed. The objects themselves indeed, 
(even in this last case) may be good or bad— 
important or trifling;—the persons with whom we 
unite may be suitable coadjutors, or the reverse;— 
the combination may be wise or unwise; but still, 
as long as the union is (like that of a regular 
treaty) for a specified purpose, and under prescribed 
rules , and is not allowed to have any influence 
beyond these, nor to bind persons indefinitely , and 
without any limitation, in respect of time, or of 
objects proposed, or of measures to be adopted,— 
we do not, by entering into any such combination, 
forfeit our independence, or become, properly speak¬ 
ing, partizans. 

Those who are unaccustomed to steady reflec¬ 
tion and clearness of distinction are apt to con¬ 
found together in their minds two questions which 
ought carefully to be distinguished: that concern¬ 
ing the character of the particular objects which, 
in each particular case, may be proposed; and 
that concerning the character of the combination 
itself. 


sect. 3.] Party-Spirit among Christians . 93 

If, on the one hand, men combine for a bad 
purpose, k they are censured for the bad purpose 
independently of the combination. For they would 
be culpable if even acting singly, they were to 
aim at an unjust object. On the other hand, men 
uniting themselves to a party with a good design, 
for the furtherance of some desirable religious 
objects, but uniting in that indefinite manner above 
described, will incur all the dangers resulting from 
party-spirit. They will be in danger of being led 
on, step by step, first to give their countenance 
to much that they disapprove, and next to approve, 
and ultimately to take part in, much that their 
better mind would originally have condemned. 
And too often they will be drawn on at length to 
sacrifice the very end originally proposed, to the 
means; and to abandon the whole spirit and cha¬ 
racter, and temper of the Christian religion, in 
their zeal for a party, which they had at first 
joined for the sake of advancing the Christian 
religion. 

We are right then, when the objects proposed 

k As for instance (to allude to a case familiar to our minds 
at present) when men combine to deter by violence any man 
from working at his lawful trade. 


94 


Danger arising from 


[essay II. 


are in themselves good, and when these, and the 
means by which they are to be promoted, are 
distinctly specified — we are right in associating 
together for such purposes, provided we are careful 
to guard our minds against the insensible, insidi¬ 
ous encroachments of party-spirit;—against being 
unconsciously led beyond the defined limits;—so 
as to bind ourselves, (in any thing that concerns 
religion,) by an indefinite, general allegiance to 
any man or set of men. The distinction may be 
illustrated by the case of civil governments. It 
makes a great difference whether we live under 
a settled constitution and formally-enacted laws— 
even though these should be not exempt from im¬ 
perfection — or whether we live under arbitrary 
rulers, acting according to their own unlimited 
discretion. 

You may hear it said not uncommonly, that 
“ when bad men conspire, good men must unite;” 
—that party-spirit is productive of some good, as 
well as some evil,—that it cannot be dispensed 
with, till human nature shall have been so far 
improved as to enable us to substitute universally 
some better principle ;—that it has its uses, though 
like every thing human, it is liable to abuse; — 


sect. 3.] Party-Spirit among Christians. 95 

and that care must be taken to guard against its 
excess, &c. 

Now all this may perhaps be, in secular matters, 
just, though too vague to be of much practical 
utility; since no one needs to be informed, that 
abuses and excesses are to be avoided: and few are 
likely to attribute these faults to themselves. Such 
general remarks therefore men are more likely to 
apply to an opposite party than to their own. But 
as far as the remarks are right and true, they are 
(as I have said) applicable in respect of secular 
matters only, and not of religious. In these, 
I should say that it is not an abuse or an excess of 
party-spirit that is to be avoided; but that party- 
spirit—in the strict sense, as above explained—is 
itself an abuse , and is wholly and universally for¬ 
bidden by the Apostle, as “ carnal.” 1 

I do not conceive the case of a Church to be 
any exception. A Church is, or ought to be, a 
community of Christians combined for certain defi¬ 
nite objects, and under prescribed rules. If any 
one consider the specified doctrines of some Church, 
as fundamentally erroneous, or cannot conscienti¬ 
ously comply with its prescribed formularies, he 
1 ] Cor. iii. 3. 


96 


Banger arising from [essay ii. 

ought not to be a member of that Church: but it 
is not at all implied by his being a member of a 
certain Church, that he agrees with every member 
of it, or even with the majority of the members, in 
the opinions that may, from time to time, prevail 
among them, as to other points, whether of philo¬ 
sophy, or even of religion. 

So also, if any one joins (as most of us have) a 
regularly formed religious Association for the dis¬ 
tributing of Bibles and other selected books, and 
for other such specified purposes, he does not bind 
himself to a general conformity of sentiments and 
practice in other points, with each member, or even 
with the majority of the members; but preserves 
his original independence. 

But it is otherwise if a man allows himself to be 
considered as belonging to a party, and as conform¬ 
ing indefinitely to their general views,—their pre¬ 
vailing tone of sentiment,—and their established 
practice. He may flatter himself indeed that 
whenever he may see reason to disapprove of any 
of these, he can withdraw. But the odium he 
would incur by such a step, is but too likely to 
make him hesitate at taking it; and in the mean 
time—while hesitating—he is drawn on by little 


97 


sect. 3.] Party-Spirit among Christians . 

and little to acquiesce in, and ultimately to counte¬ 
nance, much that he would, originally, and judging 
for himself, have shrunk from. 

Sometimes too you may even find a person dis¬ 
tinctly avowing, in private conversation , his dis¬ 
approbation of many of the proceedings of the 
party with which he is connected, but to which he 
still chuses to adhere, on the ground that he can 
effect more good in conjunction with the?n > than 
alone. 

But this very circumstance ought to remind such 
a person, that by belonging to the party, he be¬ 
comes more or less responsible for all their acts—for 
all the acts indeed (in matters pertaining to religion) 
of any of the members of that religious party—at 
least it is impossible for him to say how far he may 
not be responsible—when he does not distinctly 
and publicly protest against those acts. For it is 
plain that the very same kind of support and coun¬ 
tenance which he is deriving from them , in accom¬ 
plishing what he regards as good objects, they , in 
turn, derive from him , in theirs. And his disap¬ 
probation accordingly of any part of their conduct 
to which he thus continues to give such countenance, 
though without personally joining in it—this dis- 


H 


98 Danger arising from [essay ii. 

approbation, so far from diminishing, rather en¬ 
hances his culpability. Paul, we know, bitterly 
reproached himself for having “ kept the raiment of 
them that stoned Stephenbut what should 
we have thought of him, if he had done this, 
believing at the time, that the deed was a foul 
murder ? 

When we find then, in any case, that we can 
accomplish, by combining with others, some good 
object which we could not so well effect, alone, (as, 
for instance, the establishment of an Hospital, or 
other such charity; or of an Association such as 
that above alluded to,) we are justified in uniting 
with them specifically and distinctly for that object, 
and no further ; and then, we are responsible for 
nothing beyond the regular acts of the association 
so formed. The individuals thus united with us, 
may differ from us, or from each other, in various 
points (of religion, or of politics, or of anything 
else,) distinct from the specified object; and we are 
not answerable for their actions or opinions as indi¬ 
viduals, nor necessarily imbued with their general 
sentiments. We have only to guard sedulously 
against the danger of a gradual, unperceived intro¬ 
duction of party-spirit, creeping into such an 


sect. 4.] Party-Spirit among Christians . 99 

association, and causing it to depart from its original 
and proper character, and to become a party strictly 
so called; i. e. a combination for the purpose of 
promoting, generally , and indefinitely , a certain class 
of objects. 

And as to any such general and indefinite adhe¬ 
rence to a religious party, I cannot but think (inde¬ 
pendently of other considerations) that it is setting 
up Man in the place of God. <( Lord, I will follow 
thee whithersoever thou goest,” is the expression of 
precisely that sort of allegiance which is due to God 
and not to Man. “ Be not ye called Master; for 
One is your Master, even Christ/’ m 

^ 4. I will conclude this slight sketch with one 
remark, in reference to an answer you will be not 
unlikely to meet with, if ever you should find 
occasion to urge such considerations as the fore¬ 
going. 

Not unfrequently indeed you will find men dis¬ 
avow—and perhaps sincerely—their adherence to a 
party; or at least the degree of control under which 
they are, sometimes half unconsciously, held. For 
—besides the reluctance felt by many to acknow- 
“ See Note 0, at the end of this Essay. 


100 Banger arising from [essay ii. 

ledge themselves in a state of subjection,—it often 
happens that one of the requisitions, as it were, of 
a party, will be, the disavowal of party. An indi¬ 
vidual finds himself strongly urged not only to 
submit to a certain influence, but also to disclaim 
that very submission : in order to add to the party 
the weight of his own supposed independent con¬ 
currence. 

But I am now speaking of the case in which a 
man frankly acknowledges his connexion with a 
religious party; and, when exhorted to assert his 
independence, will sometimes reply with a self- 
deceiving semblance of humility, that a great and 
eminent man, placed high by learning, or talents, or 
rank, may afford to keep aloof from party; but that 
in such an humble individual as himself, this would 
be too presumptuous; it would be setting himself 
up as a great man. 

You might here remark, by the way, that any 
such eminence in station or ability as might enable 
a man, according to this account, to stand aloof 
from party, is far from preserving its possessor from 
party-spirit, if he have no aversion to that spirit 
in itself. His consciousness of superiority may 
make him indeed unwilling to be a follower , but 


101 


sect. 4 .] Party-Spirit among Christians. 

not necessarily unambitious to be a leader , of a 
party. 

Your best reply, however, will perhaps be, that 
there is indeed something of greatness —of moral 
greatness—in rejecting implicit submission to the 
guidance of fallible men ; —in withstanding the 
allurements, and (I may add) the terrors of party ; 
in refusing to give up free-agency, where we cannot 
give up personal responsibility : but that it is pre¬ 
cisely this moral greatness that is required of every 
Christian, and which, therefore , every Christian is 
enabled to manifest. If it be a duty , it must be 
something that, through divine help, is possible. 
And that it is a duty, to all Christians, to keep clear 
of religious parties, no one (you may add) can 
doubt, who looks carefully and candidly to the 
general tenor—and, in some places, the very words 
—of the apostle Paul’s admonitions. When, for 
instance, he censures as “ carnal, and walking as 
men,” those who said, “ I am of Paul, and I of 
Apollos, and I of Cephas,” he makes no exception 
in favour of some humbler class of Christians: he 
does not say, “ you that are great and eminent 
persons ought not to be carnal, and walk as men, 
though a lower class of Christians may;” nor does 


102 


Banger arising from [essay ii. 

he say that their joining themselves to parties was 
“ carnal” in some persons, and not in others; but 
he forbids parties in the Corinthian Church, gene¬ 
rally, and totally. And we may be sure that he 
enjoined no impossible or unreasonable duty: he 
required no greatness of mind which his Master 
was not ready to supply. For what purpose indeed 
(you may add) is divine grace promised under the 
Gospel, if Christianity be not designed to elevate 
man's character? not indeed by supplying high 
intellectual powers to every Christian, or giving 
superhuman knowledge; but by leading all who are 
willing to be led, to moral elevation of character; 
—that character which a spurious humility would 
represent as a thing not to be sought for or thought 
of but by one in ten thousand: while the great 
body of Christ's People are to claim forsooth the 
privilege of being allowed to continue carnal, and 
to show their humbleness of mind by submitting 
themselves to Man, instead of to God. 

Let not therefore (you may say) an undue craving 
for human sympathy, or dread of man's disfavour, 
delude you under the specious disguise of amiable 
modesty and Christian lowliness. 

Hard, indeed, will be the task of any one who 


sect. 4.] Party-Spirit among Christians. 103 

shall set himself—not to encounter one party with 
the forces of another, but to oppose the spirit of 
Religious Party, generally. He will find arrayed 
against him the corruption of human nature in some 
of its worst forms; because Man’s virtues are here 
enlisted in the cause of his vices. For it is the 
character of party-spirit to absorb public-spirit into 
itself. The kindliest feelings of the human breast, 
—benevolence, and faithful friendship—it contracts 
into a narrow circle; the principles of conduct 
originally the noblest,—disinterested self-devotion, 
and courage, and fervently pious zeal,—-it perverts 
to its own purposes; veracity, fidelity, submissive 
humility, charitable candour, in short, every Chris¬ 
tian duty,—it confines within its own limits. No¬ 
where, more than in Religious Party, does “ Satan 
transform himself into an angel of light.” If you 
venture into this, the <f strong man’s house, to bind 
him and spoil his goods,” you must be prepared for 
a fierce contest. He who is most emphatically the 
Adversary of that God, who is “ the author of peace 
and lover of concord,” must be expected to raise up 
among the most violent of the members of all 
parties, a more bitter hostility against you, than 
they manifest against each other: and an hostility, 


104 


Danger arising from [essay ii. 

I may add, the more vehement in proportion as you 
may be the more eminent in Christian virtue and 
wisdom, and consequently the more influential as 
an opponent of religious party : even as the waves 
rage the most fiercely against the rocks which are 
the firmest and the most prominent. 

But “ fear them not, neither be afraid of their 
words, though briars and thorns be with thee, and 
though thou dwell among scorpions.” n “ Fear 
not,”—said the prophet Elisha to his servant, when, 
at Dothan, he was encompassed with foes—“ fear 
not, for they that be with us are more than they 
that be with them.” 0 And the Lord will, now, 
no less, hearken to our prayer, and enable us to see 
with the eye of faith his resistless host encamped 
round about us. 

But hard also will be the trial that you will have 
to impose on any one whom you may be exhorting 
—in these days especially—to keep clear of party 
spirit: and harder still—far more formidable—will 
be his trial, if it be, not to keep clear, but to become 
clear of Party, that you shall have to urge him ;— 
to withdraw from a party to which he shall have 
belonged, without joining any other. It will be 
0 2 Kings vi. 16. 


n Ezekiel vi. 


105 


sect. 4.] Party Spirit among Christians. 

like the cutting off of the right hand, and plucking 
out the eye that offends. I would have you, in any 
such case—instead of seeking to disguise the severity 
of the trial such a man is called to,—1 would have 
you point out and dwell upon the obloquy and 
vexatious hostility to which he foresees that he shall 
be exposed, as an additional proof how unchristian 
and uncharitable a thing is party-spirit;—how 
encroaching and usurping are its claims;—how 
enthralling its control: I would have you dwell on 
this, as an additional motive for his earnestly and 
immediately resolving, at all hazards, to escape 
from it, and to guard against it, and to devote 
himself whole and undivided to the service of “ the 
jealous God/ 5 

In proportion as you may in any instance, through 
divine help, succeed in repressing or mitigating 
party-spirit,—the bane of our religion,—the dis¬ 
grace of Christians,—the favourite theme of reproach 
and exulting taunt from infidels—so far you will 
have been doing one of the most important services 
to our holy cause. And when your endeavours to 
perform this service shall appear to be (like the 
admonitions of the prophet Ezekiel) in vain, through 
another’s perversity—in vain as far as he is con- 


106 


Danger arising , 8fc. [essay ii. 

cerned—you must remember that they will not 
prove in vain for yourself. If you shall have faith¬ 
fully given warning, though others refuse to hear, 
you “ will have delivered your soul,” and “ your 
Father, who seeth in secret, shall reward you 
openly.” 


NOTES. 


Note A, page 80 . 

Since the first edition of the foregoing pages were in 
the press, the following passage caught my eye in the 
Life of Mr. Wilberforce, being an extract from a letter 
of his in the year 1825 :— 

“ There is one subject on which I am just now deeply 
interested, and on which I should be glad to exercise 
your mind. You are aware that apian is in progress for 
instructing our artisans in general in the various branches 
of philosophy. I was friendly to the design, but I have 
been endeavouring to obtain an addition to it, without 
which I fear it will be much more injurious than beneficial 
to the community, that I mean of having lectures on the 
evidences of the Divine authority of Christianity. I 
cannot but entertain a strong persuasion, that to instruct 
any class of men, but especially our artisans of all sorts, 
in the various branches of philosophy, leaving them alto¬ 
gether ignorant of the grounds on which we rest the 
Divine authority of Christianity, will be but too sure an 
expedient for training up a race of self-conceited sceptics. 



108 


Notes. 


Hitherto our religion has been taken on trust; but now 
there will be a boast that no opinions are to be received 
implicitly and by prescription. Indeed it is a scriptural 
injunction, that we should be able to render a reason for 
our hope. And as it has pleased God to make ours a 
reasonable service, and to give us a religion which will 
stand the strictest scrutiny, surely we shall be unpardon¬ 
able if we suffer our youth to be wholly uninstructed in 
this particular only.” 

Note B, page 88. 

It is not impossible that some of my readers may con¬ 
sider me to have been dwelling unnecessarily on truths, 
which no one—at least no educated Christian of the 
present day—can doubt. But they may find most oppo¬ 
site principles set forth in modern publications, profess¬ 
edly Christian, and enjoying considerable repute, as being 
supposed to exhibit the tenets of a party within the 
Established Church. 

They will find it maintained, for instance, that we—the 
Christians of this age and country—are to be censured 
for having “ shifted the ground of our belief from testi¬ 
mony to argument, and from faith to reason.” The 
reader may observe, that this is almost the very language 
of Hume’s sneers against Christians, whom he represents 
as giving credence to such “ testimony ” as does not 
furnish (which all testimony must, that is worth listening 
to) any valid “ argument;” and as resting their “ faith ’* 
not on evidence, not on “ reason,” but, on. . . faith; 
i . e . on itself. 


Notes, 


109 


Again, we are told that in answering the question 
why our religion is to he believed, “ The poor ignorant 
uninstructed peasant will probably come nearest to the 
answer of the Gospel. He will say, 4 Because I have 
been told so by those who are wiser and better than my¬ 
self. My parents told me so, and the clergyman of the 
parish told me so; and I hear the same whenever I go to 
church. And I put confidence in these persons, because 
it is natural that I should trust my superiors. I have 
never had reason to suspect that they would deceive me. 
I hear of persons who contradict and abuse them, but 
they are not such persons as I would wish to follow in 
any other matter of life, and therefore not in religion. 
I was born and baptized in the church, and the Bible 
tells me to stay in the church, and obey its teachers : and 
till I have equal authority for believing that it is not the 
Church of Christ, as it is the Church of England, I 
intend to adhere to it.’ 

“Now, such reasoning as this will appear to this rational 
age very paltry and unsatisfactory: and yet the logic is 
as sound as the spirit is humble. And there is nothing 
to compare with it either intellectually, or morally, or 
religiously, in all the elaborate defences and evidences 
which would be produced from Paley, and Grotius, and 
Sumner, and Chalmers.” 

And again, we find the antiquity of the Christian 
Church set forth as the only secure foundation of belief: 
“ Till another church has been established, and stood 
for eighteen hundred years, there can be no argument 
against Christianity, or against any part of the Church’s 


110 


Notes . 


doctrine, sufficient to counterbalance the argument which 
we now have in its favour. Testimony, if the right 
ground of belief, is only to be overthrown by testimony.” 
Something like this seems to have been what was mur¬ 
mured in the Forum of Athens against Paul as “ a setter 
forth of strange gods,” in opposition to the prescriptive 
claims of ancient deities ! 

When we find writers, evidently of some ingenuity, 
deliberately declaring that the grounds on which the best 
educated Christians believe in their religion, are far 
inferior to those which are the very same that the Pagans 
had for maintaining their belief in opposition to Christi¬ 
anity—inferior, that is, to what is manifestly and notori¬ 
ously good for nothing—we may well feel a doubt (it 
has more than once crossed my own mind) whether these 
writers are not, in fact, concealed infidels indulging in an 
ironical sneer. Certainly, an infidel could desire nothing 
better than to find professed Christians deprecating 
appeals to evidence, and resting their faith on the same 
ground with that of the Hindoos. As for the Mahome¬ 
tans, if there be any particular charm in the precise num¬ 
ber of eighteen centuries, they cannot, till the years of 
their Hejira shall amount to that sum, have exactly that 
claim to put forward. But they have the “ testimony” 
of Mahomet as to his night-journey to heaven, uncontra¬ 
dicted by any other witness professing to have been there 
at the time ; and they have the admission of professed 
Christians, that “ testimony can only be overthrown by 
testimony!” 

The passage above cited (which is from the British 


Notes. 


Ill 


Critic) is, in the Appendix to the 8th edition of the 
Elements of Logic, exhibited in parallel columns with 
an extract from Hume’s Essay on Miracles,—with one 
from the Edinburgh Review of October 1839, p. 211, 
and with a portion of the New Testament. The last 
three of these columns are here reprinted. The coin¬ 
cidence between the sentiments of an infidel writer and 
two professedly Christian, but representing two most op¬ 
posite religious schools, and the contrast which all three 
present to Scripture, is, I think, not only curious but 
highly instructive:— 


“ Upon the whole, we may 
conclude that the Christian 
Religion not only was at 
first attended with miracles, 
but even at this day cannot 
be believed by any reason¬ 
able person without one. 
Mere reason is insufficient 
to convince us of its veracity; 
and whoever is moved by 
Faith to assent to it, is con¬ 
scious of a continued mi¬ 
racle in his own person, 
which subverts all the prin¬ 
ciples of his understanding, 
and gives him a determina¬ 
tion to believe what is most 
contrary to custom and ex¬ 
perience.— Hume's Essay, 
(at the end.) 


“ The sacred writers have 
none of the timidity of their 
modern apologists. They 
never sue for an assent to 
their doctrines, but authori¬ 
tatively command the ac¬ 
ceptance of them. They de¬ 
nounce unbelief as guilt, and 
insist on faith as a virtue of 
the highest order. In their 
catholic invitations, the in¬ 
tellectual not less than the 
social distinctions of man¬ 
kind are unheeded. Every 
student of their writings is 
aware of these facts, &c. * * 
* * * They pre-suppose that 
vigour of understanding may 
consist with feebleness of 
reason ; and that the power 
of discriminating between 
religious truth anderror does 
not depend chiefly on the 
culture or on the exercise of 
the mere argumentative fa¬ 
culty. The especial patri¬ 
mony of the poor and illite¬ 
rate—the Gospel—has been 
the stay of countless mil¬ 
lions who never framed 
a syllogism; of the great 
multitudes who, before and 
since the birth of Grotius, 
have lived in the peace and 
died in the consolations of 
our Faith, how small is the 
proportion of those whose 
convictions have been de¬ 
rived from the study of 
works like his! Of the num- 


“ This beginning of mira¬ 
cles did Jesus in Cana of 
Galilee, and manifested his 
glory, and his disciples be¬ 
lieved on Him.” 

“We know that thou art 
a teacher sent from God; 
for no man can do these 
miracles that thou doest ex¬ 
cept God be with him.” 

“ If I had not done among 
them the works that none 
other man did, they had not 
had sin.” 

“ The works that I do in 
my Father’s name, they bear 
witness of me.” 

“ Him God raised up and 
shewed Him openly; not to 
all the people, but to wit¬ 
nesses chosen afore of God, 
even to us,” &c. 

“To Him bear all the 
Prophets witness.” 

“ Be always ready to give 
to every one that asketh 
you, a reason of the hope 
that is in you,” &c. 


112 


Notes. 


bers who have addictedthem- 
selves to such studies, how 
small is the proportion of 
those who have brought to 
the task either learning, or 
leisure, or industry, suffi¬ 
cient, &c. * * * He who 
lays the foundation of his 
faith on such evidences will 
too commonly end either in 
yielding a credulous and 
therefore an infirm assent, 
or in reposing in a self-suf¬ 
ficient and far more hazard¬ 
ous incredulity.” — Edinb. 
Review. 


Note C, p. 99. 

“ We know how much the judgment of men is likely 
to be biassed , and also how much they are tempted to 
acquiesce in something against their judgment, when 
earnestly pressed by the majority of those who are 
acting with them,—whom they look up to,—whose 
approbation encourages them,—and whose censure they 
cannot but dread. 

“ Some doctrine, suppose, is promulgated, or measure 
proposed, or mode of procedure commenced, which some 
members of a party do not, in their unbiassed judgment, 
approve. But any one of them is disposed, first to wish , 
then to hope , and lastly to believe , that those are in the 
right whom he would be sorry to think wrong. And 
again, in any case where his judgment may still be 
unchanged, he may feel that it is but a small concession 
he is called on to make, and that there are great benefits 
to set against it; and that, after all, he is perhaps called 
on merely to acquiesce silently in what he does not quite 
approve ; and, he is loth to incur censure, as lukewarm 
in the good cause,—as presumptuous,—as unfriendly 


Notes. 


113 


towards those who are acting with him. To be 4 a breaker 
up of the Club’ (kraipLag ^laXvrrjg) was a reproach, the 
dread of which, we learn from the great historian of 
Greece, carried much weight with it in the transactions 
of the party warfare he is describing. And we may 
expect the like in all similar cases. 

“ And when men have once been led to made one 
concession, they are the more loth to shrink from a 
second ; and a third costs still less. 

“ I know not but from conjecture how far the process 
I have been describing was going on in the case now 
alluded to. Certain it is, that the party went on, step 
by step, towards such tenets and such measures as one 
can hardly think were at first contemplated by many 
of its members. 

“ And it is very observable that, by little and little, 
they came to adopt notions and practices completely at 
variance with what they had themselves set out with. 
Their extreme reverence for the Rubrics and Ordinances 
of our Church, ended in their introducing innovations 
totally at variance, both in letter and spirit, with what 
our Reformers enjoined. Their devoted veneration for 
episcopal authority was found to be compatible with the 
most insolent disregard for every individual bishop who 
did not acquiesce in their proceedings. Their professed 
veneration for the Articles ended in a system of non¬ 
natural interpretation, such as might allow a Mahometan 
to be a member of the Church. And those who t had 
begun by an almost idolatrous reverence for antiquity, 
and by inculcating such a rigid adherence to the tenets 


I 


114 


Notes. 


and practices of the primitive Fathers as placed these 
practically on a level with the inspired Writers,—these 
very men have at last discovered that neither those 
Fathers, nor the Apostles themselves, were in possession 
of the whole Gospel, but that it is to be sought for in 
the ‘ development ’ of subsequent Ages, and of those 
yet to come.” 

I dwelt on this point in the publication just alluded 
to, and have now recurred to it, because some are accus¬ 
tomed to speak as if we were bound to confine our care 
to the repressing of heretical doctrines actually taught, 
and of immorality of life. a But even supposing Schism 
to have no kind of connexion with these, or tendency 
to produce them (a supposition greatly at variance with 
all experience), still if we were to disregard altogether 
divisions within the Church, as a matter of indifference, 
and take no care, by repressing and guarding against 
these, to fulfil our vow of maintaining “ peace as far as 
lieth in us,” we should be ill discharging those duties in 
respect of which Christ’s ministers may fairly be regarded 
as successors of the Apostles. 

a This is what has been of late maintained by some persons; who, 
however, have, in no instance, as far as I know, assigned any reason for 
such a judgment. I do not mean that they have merely failed to give 
any valid and satisfactory reason, but that they have not even attempted 
to give any whatever. They cannot, therefore, wonder or complain, if it 
should be inferred that they have none to give. 

I, at least, cannot but adhere to my conviction, that we who have 
solemnly vowed to promote “ peace, as far as lieth in us/’ should be 
guilty of a dereliction of duty, if we should join in, or if we should 
sanction, whether actively, or negatively (by remaining passive lookers- 
on), proceedings which tend to schism. 


Notes. 


115 


When Paul rebukes so severely the Corinthians as 
“ carnal,” inasmuch as there were divisions among them, 
“ every one saying, I am of Paul, and 1, of Apollos, 
and I, of Cephas, and I, of Christ,” it is observable that 
he is not imputing to them any erroneous doctrines, or 
again, any motives of secular interest or ambition, but 
simply their separation into parties. Now suppose that 
some uninspired pastor of the Corinthian Church had, 
on some subsequent occasion, observed a recurrence of 
these divisions,—such as we learn did actually take 
place there,—ought he to have looked on in silence ? or 
ought he,—as it appears Clement of Rome actually did 
exhort, by an Epistle,—to have exerted himself, both 
as a member and a pastor of that Church, to repress 
this carnal spirit, and to check these divisions ? 

Surely he might have said with good reason, “ If, 
when some doctrine is taught which appears to me fun¬ 
damentally erroneous, I am bound, though an uninspired 
and fallible man, to protest against, and endeavour to 
banish and drive away what is, according to the best of 
my judgment, ‘ a strange doctrine, contrary to God’s 
Word,’ but which yet may conceivably be right, much 
more must I be bound to repress, what cannot but be 
wrong, such divisions and party-spirit within the Church, 
as the Apostle has so plainly denounced as carnal.” 

But, as I have already said, independently of the 
immediate and intrinsic evil of divisions, no one can be 
sure what further consequences may be the ultimate 
result. Suppose the Apostle had allowed the parties 
formed in the Corinthian Church to remain unrebuked, 

i2 


116 


Notes. 


and to spread unchecked, can any one consider it as 
certain, or even as probable, that the Gospel-doctrines 
learned from Paul, and Apollos, and Cephas, would 
have been retained in their purity ? Is it not likely that 
that would have taken place which we know did occur 
at various times in several of the Churches ?—that the 
sects of Paulites, and Apollonians, and the rest, would 
have gradually diverged more and more in doctrine ? 
that, under the title of “ developments,” depravations of 
the lessons of Paul, and Cephas, and Christ, would have 
arisen and gone on increasing ? and that at length, pro¬ 
bably, some of the antinomian views and practices of 
the Gnostics, which tainted some of the Churches of 
Asia, would have crept into the Corinthian Church ? 

But this is, unfortunately, a case in which there is no 
need to resort to conjectures as to what might have 
taken place in other Churches. We may learn a lesson 
but too plain from the experience of what has taken 
place in such instances as the one already alluded to, and 
to which others might have been added. 

On the present occasion I may be permitted to advert 
to one case, not connected with religion, as being one 
which must be familiar to the mind of every one of you. 
No candid,—I believe I might say even no wwcandid,— 
person can doubt that several men who were, originally 
at least, sincerely patriotic and loyal, were drawn in to 
join, unsuspectingly, that Association which afterwards 
attained such fearful notoriety,—the United Irishmen, 
The avowed object of that combination, and, doubtless, 
the real object of many who became members of it, was 


Notes. 


117 


to obtain the redress, by legitimate means, of sundry 
real and heavy grievances under which this country 
laboured. The goodness of the end proposed was likely 
to prove seductive; and as for the precise measures to 
be adopted for accomplishing it, these were not definitely 
laid down in the outset; nor is it improbable that this 
very indefiniteness was alleged by some persons as an 
answer to objections, or rather as a bar to the raising of 
any objections, and a plea by which to silence every 
expression of suspicion. It would be unfair,—some 
would probably urge,—to condemn by a pre-judgment 
those who have not as yet taken any step, or even re¬ 
solved what steps they shall take. It will be time enough 
to draw back when anything objectionable shall arise. 

But the wiser portion of mankind would regard this 
very indefiniteness as in itself a strong objection, as a 
reason for withholding their concurrence, and as a fair 
ground of suspicion. When an army (they would urge) 
is to be first raised, and organized, and armed, and 
disciplined, and officered, and it is left as a matter for 
after-consideration in what direction they are to march, 
and what operations they are to undertake, one had 
need have the most implicit confidence in their leaders 
not to regard with the greatest alarm such a procedure. 

Some, however, there doubtless were, as I have said, 
who, entertaining originally no evil designs, w T ere seduced 
by specious appearances and fair professions, and did not 
enough consider that “ when once embarked on the 
stream of Party, no one can be sure how far he may 
ultimately be carried.” They found themselves, doubt- 


118 


Notes . 


less, most unexpectedly to many of them, engaged in 
an attempted revolution, and partners of men in actual 
rebellion. 

No doubt many did draw back, though not without 
difficulty, and danger, and shame, when they perceived 
whither they were being hurried; though it is also, 
I think, highly probable that many were prevented by 
that difficulty and shame from stopping short and turning 
back, in time; and, having “ stepped in so far,” perse¬ 
vered in a course which, if it had been originally 
proposed to them, they would have shrunk from with 
horror, saying, “ Is thy servant a dog, that he should do 
this great thing ?” 

Clear, however, as is the lesson which it appears to 
me History affords in all departments of life as to the 
dangers likely to result from party-combinations, one 
may find some persons so far from taking warning from 
experience, that this very experience even holds out an 
inducement to them to plunge into the very danger 
against which it ought to have put them on their guard. 
For it is notorious that parties are apt to generate par¬ 
ties ; men’s dread and abhorrence of the extreme into 
which some party has been hurried, leading them too 
often to form an opposite party, that, before long, rushes 
into an extreme on the opposite side. 

There is a maxim current, that “ when bad men com¬ 
bine, good men must unite,” which, as it is commonly 
applied, has done, I conceive, great mischief, by favour¬ 
ing in practice, the error of copying, ourselves, the 
very procedure we condemn in others. I know not 


Notes . 


119 


whether any distinction is made, to which importance is 
attached, between the words “ combine” and “ unite 
but undoubtedly, if we find that there is some definite 
measure, in itself good, such as is, e.g. f the distribution 
of Bibles and Prayer-books, and certain other specified 
books circulated by our Association for discountenancing 
Vice, which can be better carried into effect by our joint 
exertions than by any separate course of action, we are 
perfectly right in joining, uniting, or combining (be the 
term used what it may), for that defined and specific 
purpose. Nor ought we to be afraid or ashamed of fol¬ 
lowing in this the examples of others who may combine 
in the same way for some different object; perhaps for 
an object which we may think a bad one. We could 
not, for instance, pass any censure, except in reference 
to the object itself, on a Society of Mahometans that 
should be formed for the distribution of the Koran. 
We disapprove, indeed, of the book itself, but the 
example of circulating what they believe to be divine 
truth is one which all men ought to follow in reference 
to the books which they respectively hold sacred. 

But it is a far different case when the character,— 
the very system of the combination itself,—is something- 
objectionable ;—when men unite indefinitely for the car¬ 
rying out of certain general principles, in such ways as 
may hereafter be resolved on by the leaders (whether 
many or few) to whom they have intrusted the conduct 
of affairs ; and who, we may be sure, from all experience 
of the past, will take upon them to explain and to apply 
those principles as they think fit, and to devise measures 


120 


Notes. 


accordingly. It is then that great, and indeed, almost 
boundless confidence is necessarily reposed in the integrity 
and wisdom of those leaders. It is then that we usually 
find the members of such a coalition led on, step by step, 
into much that they would originally have disapproved. 
It is then that we justly censure the very plan and system 
of the association as alarmingly dangerous; and that, con¬ 
sequently, we are bound to abstain from following such 
an example, and from endeavouring to counteract one 
evil by introducing another, of an analogous character, 
on the opposite side. For if, after having seen,—and 
indeed, in consequence of having seen,—into what per¬ 
nicious extremes men may be gradually led, through the 
influence of party, we adopt a similar course ourselves 
to that which we blame in others, we are not only respon¬ 
sible for the immediate consequences,—for any contrary 
extremes that may result from our own procedure,—but 
we are also preparing the way for a fresh and opposite 
re-action in the other direction,—for new coalitions of a 
like indefinite character, successively engendering one 
another to an unlimited extent. 

As for the agreement which exists,—and which I 
rejoice to recognise,—in respect of some great and 
valuable truths, among Christians of different denomina¬ 
tions, who in many other points are of widely different 
opinions, the inculcation of these truths among the 
members of their respective communions needs no formal 
coalition, and is independent of all studied co-operation. 
Our own congregations, and those of other religious 
teachers, whenever they find their respective pastors 


Notes. 


121 


concurring, without previous concert, in setting forth 
some fundamental Christian truth, are likely to he even 
the more impressed with it from the very circumstance 
of its being inculcated, not by virtue of a stipulation, 
and in fulfilment of an engagement entered into with 
those of other denominations, but as the result of each 
minister’s own unbiassed conviction of its truth and im¬ 
portance. 

Each Christian Church or Sect will thus be bearing 
its own distinct, independent testimony in favour of the 
same doctrine; and thus a virtual co-operation spon¬ 
taneously takes place, even more effectual than could be 
brought about by any formal agreement. 

We, for instance, of this Church, coincide with the 
chief part of the Presbyterians, with the Independents, 
and with the Roman Catholics, in maintaining the doc¬ 
trine of the Trinity; but, in instructing our people in 
that doctrine, we can receive no aid from any priest 
or minister of another Denomination; nor can these 
receive any aid from us. And, again, in endeavouring 
to convert a Socinian to that doctrine, I cannot conceive 
how these different ministers,—agreed as they are in 
thinking him erroneous,—could so combine their efforts 
as to act together to any good purpose. There is in this 
case, therefore, no need for establishing, and no opening 
for employing, what might be called a “ Catholic Alli¬ 
ance ” for counteracting Socinian errors. 

Again, we coincide with numerous sects of Protestant 
Dissenters, in reckoning Scripture the only infallible 
standard, and denying the divine authority of traditions. 


122 


Notes. 


But this also we can, and should, inculcate on our own 
congregations, by as valid arguments as could be adduced 
by any Dissenters: and if we ever do deem it advisable 
to appeal to their testimony as a confirmation • of our 
views, we can do so even the more effectually from their 
being entirely unconnected with us by any preconcerted 
plan, and formal league; while, to the Roman Catholics, 
again, or any others who differ from us as to the autho¬ 
rity of Tradition, those our arguments are likely to have 
the less weight in proportion as jealous and hostile 
suspicion is aroused by the idea of a coalition formed 
against them. 

On any and every point, in short, wherein Christians 
of other Denominations spontaneously concur with us, 
that spontaneous concurrence is the only useful co-opera¬ 
tion they can afford us, and makes any formal com¬ 
bination worse than superfluous. 

And again, in respect of those other, not unimportant 
points, wherein irreconcilable differences exist among 
Christians of different Denominations, though we are 
bound not to give up our own conscientious judgment 
to that of other men, or require them to submit to our’s, 
I should rejoice to see an universal agreement among 
Christians,—I might say, among mankind,—to abstain 
mutually not only from all harsh condemnation and bit¬ 
terly reviling language, but from all hostile attacks on 
the creeds or on the systems of those who dissent from 
us, and in short, as far as possible, from a controversial tone 
of speaking and writing concerning them .—Charge of 
1846, pp. 6— 20. 


Notes . 


123 


The Association, attempted to be formed, under the 
title of an “ Evangelical Alliance,” for the promotion of 
Christian-union, aimed at more, in some respects, and at 
less, in others, than what I have here pointed out as 
desirable and as feasible. 

It aimed at more, inasmuch as some kind of active 
co-operation was contemplated, which was to take place in 
some undefined way, to be hereafter determined on by 
those who took the lead in the movement. And it aimed 
at less , inasmuch as it did not contemplate any such 
mutual forbearance among Christians as I have been 
recommending; but both excluded certain classes of 
Christians from the Society, and also reserved, for those 
who did join it, a perfect freedom to continue their 
hostile attacks on each other, in respect of all points 
wherein they might differ. And, indeed, I believe 
it ranked among its most prominent advocates, per¬ 
sons who were actually members of another Society, 
formed for the purpose of overthrowing the Established 
Church. 

As for common objects proposed, no mode of useful 
co-operation has been, or, we may now say, can be 
pointed out, in which such a society can be employed. 
The individual members of it, indeed, may exert them¬ 
selves towards such objects; though, as I have pointed 
out in these pages, rather less effectually than if they 
had not been combined in any such Alliance. But the 
Society, as a society, can take no steps,—at least none 
that ever occurred to me, or have been suggested by 
themselves,—for furthering any good object. And, on 


124 


Notes. 


the other hand, there are many ill consequences which 
naturally suggest themselves to the mind as likely to 
ensue ; besides others not as yet distinctly anticipated 
by any one, but which it would be rash to feel secure 
against, when a combination of so indefinite a character 
shall have once been organized. 

One most obvious and immediate ill-effect, is the dan¬ 
ger of divisions within any Church, of which some of the 
members do and others do not, join such an association. 
When, indeed, a Society is formed for adopting certain 
definite measures,—such as the Christian Knowledge 
Society, or our Association here for discountenancing 
Vice,'—a very moderate degree of Christian charity will 
lead the members of it to suppose that their fellow- 
churchmen, who do not join it, differ from them only in 
views of expediency, and prefer some different plan of 
procedure. But when the bond of union is not any 
definite measure, but—as in the present case— subscrip¬ 
tion to certain articles of faith, a prejudice is likely to be 
raised against all who hold aloof from such an Alliance, 
as if their faith were unsound. The inference is likely 
to be drawn, however unreasonable, and however sincerely 
some may protest against it, that those who refuse to 
join, or who are excluded from, an Evangelical Alliance, 
must be strangers to evangelical religion, and, conse¬ 
quently, excluded from the Gospel-covenant, and unfit 
to be accounted Christians. 

I am aware, indeed, that all intentions have been 
strenuously denied of refusing to reckon as Christians 
even those who are accounted inadmissible into the 


Notes . 


125 


Evangelical Alliance. But it is very difficult to maintain 
a distinction where there is, according to the received 
and intelligible use of language, no difference. By a 
Christian is understood, not merely any one who believes 
that such a person as Jesus of Nazareth existed, but 
one who receives the Gospel— Evangelium —of Jesus 
Christ. A man may, indeed, hold more or less of error 
intermixed with Gospel-truth; he may more or less 
have corrupted, or imperfectly embraced the truth; and 
may, accordingly, be more or less imperfectly evan¬ 
gelical—imperfectly Christian : but to whatever extent 
he is Christian , to the same extent he must be evangelical . 
To ask whether all Christians are evangelical, seems 
like asking whether all men are human. A person may, 
indeed, be more or less deficient in rationality, or in 
some other attribute of the Human Species ; but to say 
that so far as any Being is to be accounted a man, he 
must be accounted human, would be reckoned not only 
a self-evident, but an identical proposition. And, so, 
also, according to any intelligible definition of Chris¬ 
tianity, it must be equally self-evident that, to whatever 
extent any one has embraced Christianity, his religion 
is evangelical. 

Those, therefore, who' draw a distinction,* and insist 
on it as an important one (though, certainly, none such 
is recognised in Scripture), between^ Christianity and 
evangelical religion , lay themselves open to the suspicion 
of putting forth, as a Gospel, some devices of their own 
which are distinct from Christianity, and form no part 
of what was originally taught as the “ good tidings”— 


126 


Notes. 


or Gospel of Christ himself. And this is a matter which 
calls for serious consideration ; for, “if any man,” says 
the apostle, 16 or even an angel from heaven, preach some 
other Gospel, let him be accursed.” It is deeply to be 
regretted, that any who bear the Christian name, should 
either deserve such an imputation, or should, by indis¬ 
cretion, lay themselves open to it, if undeserved.— 
Appendix to Charge of 1846, pp. 36—39. 


ESSAY III. 


THE DANGER 

OP AN 


ERRONEOUS IMITATION OF CHRIST’S TEACHING. 



















































































TO THE 

CANDIDATES ORDAINED AT CHRIST CHURCH, 

ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1838, 

(JBssag, 

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A DISCOURSE ADDRESSED TO THEM ON 

THAT OCCASION, 

AND OF WHICH THEY REQUESTED THE PUBLICATION, 

IS INSCRIBED, 

BY 

THEIR SINCERE FRIEND AND FELLOW-LABOURER, 

THE AUTHOR. 


K 






























































































ESSAY III. 

ON THE DANGER OF AN ERRONEOUS IMITATION 

of Christ’s teaching. 

§ 1. That our Lord left us in his life " an 
example, that we should follow his steps,” is 
more readily acknowledged in words, than atten¬ 
tively reflected on. Nor is it enough that we 
should be again and again reminded, and earnestly 
and frequently exhorted, to imitate our great 
Master: we should also carefully examine, in what 
points, and in what manner his example is to be 
a guide to us. For when two persons are placed 
in different circumstances, one of them, when seek¬ 
ing to take pattern from the other, may attempt 
this so unwisely, as to depart from the model 

k 2 


132 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

instead of following it. The one may be acting 
suitably to the position lie occupies, and the cir¬ 
cumstances he is placed in, and the other—the in¬ 
judicious imitator—may be acting ^suitably to his 
own. A private citizen, for instance, who would 
profit by the example of some wise and good king, 
must do so by rightly discharging the duties of a 
private citizen; not by assuming the demeanour and 
the functions of a sovereign. So, also, if a clergy¬ 
man is leading what is called an exemplary life,— 
i. e. one which sets a good example/—a layman, 
who should so imitate him as to take upon himself 
the ministerial duties which pertain to the clerical 
profession, would, by that very act, be departing 
from his proposed model. And in like manner, 
any one who should have received an immediate 
divine revelation, as a messenger from heaven, 
would be authorized and bound to discharge that 
office in a manner which would be absurdly and 
impiously presumptuous in one not so inspired and 
so sent. 

If accordingly any Christian instructors should 
pretend to imitate our Divine Master, by teaching 
as with “ authority, and not as the Scribes/’ 
a See Essay II. Third Series, § 11, p. 137. 


sect. 1 .] Imitation of Christ's Teaching . 133 

they would by that very procedure become un- 
like Him, since they would be assuming (which 
He never did) a power not really conferred by 
Heaven. 

Our Lord’s assumption of authority created sur¬ 
prise (we are told) among the hearers, as being 
different from what they had been used to. “ They 
were astonished,” it is said, “ at his doctrine,” i. e. 
at his manner of delivering his precepts, b for he 
taught them as one having authority, and not as 
the Scribes. 

The Scribes (i. e . copyists and expounders of 
the Hebrew Scriptures) were of course accustomed 
to say, “ So and so is written in the Law; ” “ Such 
and such is the sense of this or that passage, and 
such and such conclusions may be drawn from it.” 
The teaching of Jesus, on the contrary, was, “ I say 
unto you:” “ This or that ye have heard hath been 
said by them of old time; but I say unto you—so 
and so.” 

And it is worth remarking, that his tone is more 
authoritative than that of the Prophets. His ex- 

b This is the usual sense of the word “ doctrine ” in our 
version of the Bible; answering to the original Atha^rj, and 
to the Latin “ Doctrina.” 


134 Banger of an Erroneous [essay iii. 

pression is not (like theirs) “ Thus saith the Lord;” 
but thus I say unto you. They were men sent 
from God: He was Emanuel—God dwelling with 
his people. 

And hence He claimed and exercised (most 
justly) the right either to publish or to withhold 
any portion of divine truth, according as He saw 
fit; and to impart whatever knowledge concerning 
the Gospel dispensation He did impart, whenever, 
and to whomsoever He would. This, evidently, 
is an exercise of that kind of authority which 
belongs properly to a divine instructor—and which 
it is therefore most presumptuous for a human 
instructor,—even were he a prophet—to assume, 
unless he can show that he is expressly commis¬ 
sioned to exercise it. 

The ground on which our Lord rested his claim 
to be listened to and obeyed—the foundation of 
the authority with which He spoke, was, the dis¬ 
play of miraculous powers. “ The works,” said 
he, “ which I do in my Lather’s name, they bear 
witness of me;” “ If I had not done among them 
the works which none other man did, they had not 
had sin;” and again, “ If the mighty works which 
have been done in you, had been done in Tyre and 


sect. 1.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching . 135 

Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sack¬ 
cloth and ashes !” 

It is perhaps scarcely necessary to observe, that 
it is not meant to be recommended that the whole 
sum of Gospel-truths should be taught at once in a 
single lesson, or should be imparted without any 
regard to the age, understanding, previous know¬ 
ledge, opportunities, and other circumstances of the 
learner; or to the various degrees of difficulty, and 
of importance, in different parts of what is to 
be taught. In the teaching of any science, art, 
language, or professional business, every judicious 
instructor pays regard to all these points; giving 
“ line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little 
and there a little,” not expecting either the same 
rate of progress, or the same ultimate proficiency, 
in all. The censure implied is, not, of a Christian 
minister who teaches the religion of the Gospel as 
well as he can; but of one who does not teach all 
men as well as he can; who, as if he were not a 
“ steward of God’s mysteries, and manifold grace,” 
but of his own , introduces the system of the 
“ double doctrine,”—the exoteric and esoteric,— 
borrowed from the ancient philosophers, and early 
introduced into the Alexandrian school of divinity : 


136 Danger of an Erroneous [essay III. 

who takes upon him to impart to the select few, 
initiated into mysteries, certain secret doctrines 
which he conceals from the great mass of Christians, 
and “ shuns to set before them the whole counsel of 
God,” so as to be “ pure from the blood of all 
men.” 0 

§ 2. The description then which the Evangelists 
give of our Lord’s remarkable and characteristic 
“ doctrine,” (i. e. mode of teaching,) should be 
considered and impressed on the mind, in refer¬ 
ence to the three questions to which I have now 
adverted:—1st, What was the kind of authority 
with which Jesus taught, and which distinguished 
his discourses from those of the Scribes ?—2dly, On 
what did He rest his claim to that authority ?—and, 
3dly, What are we to learn from this account of his 
teaching — how are we rightly to profit by his 
example ? 

As to the first point, his authoritative mode of 
teaching was, as we have seen, to require belief of 
his assertions, and submission to His commands, as 

* For a fuller elucidation of this important subject, the 
reader is referred to Dr. West’s clear and unanswerable Dis¬ 
course on “ Reserve.” 


sect. 2.] Imitation of Christs Teaching. 137 

coming from Him, and as therefore having a divine 
sanction. The “ authority ” He claimed was some¬ 
thing far beyond what is sometime^ so called. It 
was much more than that claim merely to a careful 
and respectful consideration which fairly belongs to 
the deliberate judgments of learned, and able, and 
good men—a right to such deference as places the 
burden of proof on the opposite side. d The latter 
is that “ authority , in controversies of faith/’ 
claimed for a Church in our 20th Article: evi¬ 
dently not that kind of authority which belongs 
to an inspired and infallible messenger from God, 
equal to and independent of Scripture; in which 
sense it is as distinctly declaimed by our Church, 
as it was claimed by Jesus Christ. 

The ground , again, on which He claimed such 
authority, was, as we have seen, the miraculous 
power He displayed, and to which He appealed 
in proof of his coming from the Father; saying, 
“ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
not/’ 

It it evident therefore that if Christ’s ministers 
should attempt (blindly) to imitate Him by assum¬ 
ing an authority that belongs not to uninspired 
d See Essay IV. Third Series, § 4, p. 202. 


138 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

Man, they would be, in fact, as was above remarked, 
departing from his example. And the People, also, 
if they were to admit any such groundless preten¬ 
sions of fallible men, and implictly to receive what 
these teach, on their own authority, would be de¬ 
parting the most widely from the example of Christ’s 
disciples. Por these disciples received the Gospel, 
not on the bare word of human teachers, but on 
the evidence which God was pleased to afford,—the 
testimony He bore to his inspired messengers, “ with 
demonstration (as Paul expresses it) of the Holy 
Ghost, and with power.” And it is plain that a 
blind and credulous deference to any assumed or 
imagined authority of fallible men, must be as 
opposite to a well-grounded faith in God’s inspired 
and duly-accredited messengers, as the superstitious 
veneration of the Pagans for their idols is to the 
right worship of the true God. 

And yet, as there is in the religions of Pagans a 
certain degree of external, deceptive, resemblance to 
true religion—such as that of counterfeit coin to 
genuine—so, the usurped or fancied authority of 
fallible men has an outward and deceitfid likeness 
to the legitimate authority rightfully claimed by the 
Son of God : and the irrational implicit submission 


sect. 3.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 139 

of their followers resembles, at the first glance, the 
humble faith and obedience of those who followed 
Christ and his Apostles. In both cases there is a 
confident and resigned submission of the under¬ 
standing and the will, to the guidance of a sup¬ 
posed divine authority ; even as the worshippers of 
Baal, and of Jehovah—of Mahomet, and of Christ 
—may be alike in reverent adoration and devoted 
trust, though differing in the essential point of truth 
or falsehood. The stamp and outward form of 
counterfeit and of genuine coin are alike—even 
more alike than two pieces of gold stamped differ¬ 
ently ; though, inwardly, the base metal and the gold 
differ in the really important and essential point. 

And hence, obvious and self-evident as the-above 
remarks are likely to appear, there is no small danger 
of our Lord’s example and that of his disciples 
being in practice misapprehended. Men are apt 
to conceive themselves, or others, to be the most 
closely conforming to these models, when they are, 
in fact, the most widely departing from them. 

§ 3. 1 shall therefore offer some brief remarks 
on the cautions which are needed in contemplating 
and applying to our use these examples. 


140 


Danger of an Erroneous . [essay hi. 

First, then, we may learn from our Lord’s appeal 
to miraculous proofs as the foundation of his claim 
to authority, how great is the mistake of those who 
imagine that Christian faith consists in an uninquir¬ 
ing acquiescence, without any reason for it; or 
that at least there is the more virtue in a man’s 
faith, the less it is founded on evidence. 

It is true that, while the Scribes reasoned with 
their hearers out of the Jewish Scriptures, this was 
not our Lord’s usual mode of teaching; but it 
would be absurd to conclude that, because his 
hearers had not the same kind of reasons laid be¬ 
fore them as the Scribes gave, therefore they had 
none at all. The argument on which their assent 
was claimed was different indeed, but it was not 
less an argument than the other; and it was far 
stronger. Jesus demanded acceptance for what he 
said, not (usually) as proved from the books of 
Moses and the Prophets, who had received their 
message from God ; but as delivered by Him who 
Himself came from God, and who appealed to his 
works, as bearing witness of Him; who claimed 
even the divine “ power to forgive sins,” on the 
ground that He had the no less divine power to bid 
the palsied cripple “ take up his bed and walk.” 


sect. 3.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 141 

On this ground accordingly it was—and surely a 
very rational ground—that the candid among his 
hearers acknowledged his pretensions; and followed 
Him—no longer as merely a teacher worth listening 
to, but—as one who had a well-founded claim to 
authority from Heaven. Having wrought his “ be¬ 
ginning of miracles in Cana, and manifested forth 
his glory, his disciples believed on Him;” “We 
know,” said Nicodemus, “ that Thou art a teacher 
sent from God; for no man can do these miracles 
which Thou doest, except God be with him.” 

God’s providence did not, indeed, supply the very 
same hind of evidence to all alike. The Beraean 
Jews, for instance, being in possession of the Old 
Testament-Scriptures, were enabled to “ search 
them and see whether the things they were told 
were so;” and are praised for their candour in so 
doing. To many of the Pagans again, other, but 
not less forcible evidence was supplied. A suffi¬ 
cient amount of proof seems always to have been 
afforded to all among whom the Gospel was 
preached, to produce a rational conviction, both as 
to the divine origin, and as to the true character, 
of the Christian religion. 

The faith which Jesus and the Apostles com- 


142 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay iii. 

mended in their hearers, consisted in a readiness to 
listen fairly to what was said,—in an ingenuous 
openness to conviction,—and in an humble acqui¬ 
escence in what they had good ground for believing 
to have come from God, however adverse to their 
prejudices, and wishes, and habits of thought; in 
a firm trust in what they were rationally convinced 
God had promised, however strange, and foreign 
from their expectations and conjectures. 

And yet there have been persons in various ages 
of the Church—and the present is not without them 
—who represent Christian faith as a thing not 
merely different from this, but even opposite to it. 
A man’s determination to adhere to the religion of 
his fathers, merely on the ground that it was theirs, 
and that it has long existed, and that he has been 
assured by persons superior to him in rank, and in 
presumed learning, that the authority of the Bible, 
and the meaning of it, are such as they tell him; 
this has been represented as the most perfect Chris¬ 
tian faith. 6 Such grounds for adhering to a religion 
have been described as not merely sufficient for the 
most unlearned classes,—not even merely as the 
utmost these are capable of attaining,—but as abso- 
e See Note B to the preceding Essay. 


sect. 3.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 143 

lutely the best;—as better than the most rational 
conviction of a cultivated understanding, that has 
long been sedulously occupied in “ proving all 
things, and holding fast that which is right/’ 

Now this kind of (falsely called) faith, whose 
usurped title serves to deceive the unthinking, is 
precisely what is characterised in Scripture as want 
of faith. 6 For I need hardly remind the reader, 
that the unbelieving Jews, and pagans of old, were 
those who rejected the “many infallible proofs” which 
God set before them, because they had resolved to 
adhere, at all hazards, to the creed of their fathers, 
and to take the word of their chief priests or civil 
magistrates, as decisive, and to stop their ears 
against all evidence, and drown reason by clamour. 
“ Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed 
on him ?”—“ We know that God spake unto Moses; 
but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is.” 
—“Who knoweth not that the city of Ephesus is 
a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the 
image which fell down from Jupiter?”—“These 
men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 
and teach customs which are not lawful for us to 
receive and observe, being Romans.” 

e See Essay III. (Third Series,) § 1. 


144 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay iti. 

But opposite as is the faith which the Apostles 
inculcated to that which sometimes usurps its name, 
such is the influence of that name itself, and of 
that external resemblance between things intrin¬ 
sically the most unlike, that men not unfrequently 
persuade both others and themselves that they are 
following the example of Christ’s disciples, when, in 
fact, they are imitating the very persons who opposed 
and rejected Him. 

It is for Christ’s ministers, then, neither to teach 
as claiming for themselves individually the authority 
of inspired messengers from heaven, nor to lead the 
people to confound blind credulity with humble 
faith; but to manifest in themselves, and inculcate 
on others, that faith which our Master called for, 
and commended in his followers that faith which 
excludes all timorous distrust of his will and power 
to maintain the cause of his Gospel in the way He 
himself has determined. It is for us, in firm reli¬ 
ance on Him, to instruct and encourage men to find 
a sufficient authority for their faith and for their 
practice, and to give a sufficient reason of “ the hope 
that is in them.” 


§ 4. But moreover, we must not (if we would 


sect. 4.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 145 

profit by the examples of Christ and his Apostles) 
refer the people, as a decisive authority, on the 
essential and immutable points of Christian faith 
and duty, to the declarations or decrees of any 
class or Body of fallible men;—of any who have 
not sensibly-miraculous proofs of* inspiration to 
appeal to. Whether it be to a Council or to a 
Church, that reference is made,—whether to ancient 
or to later Christian writers/—whether to a great or 

f “ It may perhaps be necessary, for the sake of some readers, 
to observe in this place that it is not intended to cast any con¬ 
tempt on these writers (the ancient Fathers). The number is 
very great even of those whose works have come down to us, 
without reckoning those whose works are lost; they flourished 
in different ages and in different countries ; and being all of 
them uninspired men, of very different qualifications in point 
of knowledge and of ability, it would evidently be equally 
rash to speak of ‘ the Fathers,’ indiscriminately, with con¬ 
tempt, or with veneration. 

“ As there were many sound, and many unsound, religious 
teachers in the times of the Apostles, so, it is to be supposed, 
there have been ever since. But there is this important dif¬ 
ference; that while the Apostles flourished, their infallible 
authority decided for us whose doctrines were sound, and 
whose erroneous ; after their time, though we have every 
reason to suppose that some truth and some error are still 
taught, we are left to make out for ourselves from Scripture, 
by the light of Reason, under the guidance of the ordinary 


L 


146 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

to a small number of men, however learned, wise, 
and good,—in all cases the broad line of distinction 
between inspired and uninspired, must never be 
lost sight of; and, in conformity with what our 
Lord and his Apostles have taught us, we must 
neither make, nor admit claims to inspiration, unless 
supported (as theirs were) by miraculous proofs. 

It would be a most irreverent departure from the 
models presented to us in Scripture, as well as in 
other respects, a rash and unwarrantable procedure, 
to admit such claims without any other proof than 
the supposed need of perpetual inspiration in the 
Church, and an imagined promise of a supply of 
that need. 

I say “ an imagined promise/ 5 because there seems 
no good ground for inferring from our Lord’s pro¬ 
mise to be with his People “ always, even unto the 
end of the world,” that He must have conferred on 
them, or on some portion of them, infallibility in 
judgment , any more than impeccability in moral 
conduct ; which is at least not inferior in importance. 
The Holy Spirit which He promised should be 

aid of the Holy Spirit, which is the true, and which the 
untrue doctrine .”—Revelations concerning a Future State , 
pp. vii. viii. 


sect. 4.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 147 

“ given to them that ask it,” is not more needed, 
or more promised, with a view to correctness of 
belief \ than to holiness of life: and yet, with respect 
to this last, most men admit that, “if we say we 
have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is 
not in us :” why should we not be equally ready to 
admit that “ if we say we have no error , we deceive 
ourselves ?” If we utter with sincerity the words, 
“ Who can tell how oft he offendeth ? oh cleanse 
Thou me from my secret faults,” we shall not fail 
to add, “ Who can tell how oft he mistaketh ?” 

Every one, doubtless, is led to what is right, 
both in faith and practice, as far as he is “ led by 
the Spirit of Christ;” but how far he is in each 
instance, under that guidance, he cannot know with 
certainty till the day of judgment. While con¬ 
tinually aiming at perfection, both in belief and 
practice, the Christian is never authorized to “ count 
himself to have apprehended.” Though he may, in 
point of fact, be right, he must beware of the arro¬ 
gance of confidently pronouncing and insisting on 
his own unerring rectitude, unless he shall have 
received an immediate revelation, and can produce 
his credentials as an inspired messenger from God. 

As for those who do appeal—in support of a 
l 2 


148 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

claim to continued, or to renewed, inspiration in 
tlieir respective Churches, or in the leaders they 
venerate—to sensibly miraculous proofs, such as 
gifts of tongues/ gifts of healing, &c., these persons, 
how much soever they may fail in establishing the 
miraculous facts , are at least consistent and intel¬ 
ligible in the conclusions they maintain. The test 
they appeal to is fair. h “ The God that answereth 
by fire, let him be God!” 

But if our Lord had designed to delegate to 
others, besides the Apostles, an inspired authority 
to decide on Gospel truths, without bestowing at the 
same time the miraculous gifts which are “ the signs 

6 It may be necessary here to remark, that by “ tongues,” I 
mean certain sounds conveying a sense understood by some 
one : not according to the absurd and impious pretensions that 
have been of late put forth, mere unintelligible gabble. 

h It is not meant to be implied that all who appeal to sup¬ 
posed miraculous signs, rest their cause on that appeal only. 
Many members of the Church of Rome, and also of various 
denominations of Protestants, in various ages, down to the 
present, have set forth appeals of this kind, but have at the 
same time appealed also to passages of Scripture. Each kind 
of appeal must be tried on its own proper grounds. When 
reference is made to Scripture, the authority of that being 
admitted, the question is, as to the correctness of the interpre¬ 
tation . When alleged miracles are appealed to, the inference 
from them being admitted, the question is, as to the facts. 


sect. 4.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 149 

of an Apostle,” He would necessarily have desig¬ 
nated, in express terms, that could not be mistaken, 
the persons and the places to which Christians must 
resort for such authoritative decisions. He would 
have clearly pointed out (as under the former dis¬ 
pensation) “ the place which the Lord had chosen, 
to cause his name to dwell there.” He would 
have plainly declared that either the Bishops of 
some particular Church—whether Jerusalem, or 
Rome, or Constantinople,—or that the Christian 
writers of the first three, or the first four centuries,— 
or that the unwritten traditions 1 current in a certain 
specified country,—or that the majority of votes in 
a general Council, so and so convened,—were to 
have this decisive authority: and thus by that sped- 

1 It may not be inopportune here to remark, that the dis¬ 
cussions one sometimes meets with, as to the “ credibility of 
tradition ” generally , are as idle as Hume’s respecting the 
credit due to testimony. One might as well inquire, “ What 
degree of regard should be paid to books V Common sense 
would dictate, in reply, the question, “ What book 1 whose 
testimony ? what tradition V* When Hume read the accounts 
that have been given, for instance, of Egypt, he doubtless did 
not sit down to solve the abstract question, whether it were 
more probable that “pyramids should be built,” or “that 
travellers should lie but examined the ‘particular testimony 
as to the particular case before him. And just so should each 
alleged tradition be examined on its own merits. 


150 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

fication on his part, their decisions would have been 
stamped by the miraculous proofs He himself had 
displayed. 

It is only by such a distinct designation as this, 
or else by the bestowing of sensibly miraculous 
gifts, that He could have enabled Christians in all 
ages to know with certainty where they were to 
apply for the decisive responses of a living oracle of 
Gospel-truth. I say “ with certainty/’ because, 
on this point, if on no other, certainty was to be 
confidently expected ; the very object supposed being 
to supersede all uncertainty, and all exercise of 
private judgment. It would have been a mockery 
therefore to bid us first decide as well as we can, 
by our own fallible judgment, on doubtful questions 
and conflicting claims. Had our Lord’s design 
been to provide such a perpetual living oracle, He 
would not have failed to point to it by a perfectly 
plain declaration. Now as we know that He did 
not make any such declaration, we must conclude 
that he did not delegate the authority with which 
He himself taught, to any but those to whom his 
Spirit bore testimony, “ confirming their word by 
signs following.” k 

k Dr. Shuttleworth has pointed out, in a recent work, that 
the most eminent of the very Fathers referred to, did not even 


sect. 4.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 151 

All who have endeavoured to find some such un¬ 
erring oracle residing in any man, or Body of men, 
^gifted with “ the signs of an apostle,”—all, in 
short, who (as some of them express it) have 
“ thrown themselves unreservedly on revelation 
wherever” (as they fancied) “ it was to be found, 
whether in Scripture or Antiquity;” all these have 
proceeded in the search, each on some arbitrary 
rule devised by man, and not warranted by any 
declaration of our Divine Master. “ Feeling 
strongly ” (as they profess) “ the inadequacy of 
their own intellect to guide them to religious truth,” 

themselves assert a claim (though it would not have been ad¬ 
missible if they had) to the authority some have since assigned 
to them; but are careful to draw the distinction between their 
own writings and those of the inspired Evangelists and Apostles. 

I may here observe, that this author, and some others to 
whom I have made reference, display a tone of fairness and of 
Christian courtesy, which fully refutes a sweeping charge 
brought by some of their opponents, that “ their arguments are 
not answered, but they are opposed simply by railing.” That 
they may have been opposed by railing and by “ false extracts ” 
is very probable : this by itself proves nothing either way : 
but that they have been opposed “ simply by railing,” is an 
assertion applying to all who have disputed their doctrines; 
and it is one which if made by any person ^acquainted with 
the publications I have referred to, argues most culpable rash¬ 
ness ; and something much worse than rashness, in any one 
who has read them. 


152 Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

they'have trusted to their own intellect, or their own 
imagination, to stamp on whatever they think fit, 
the character of Revelation , the great source of 
religious truth! 

But “ when they shall say unto you, Lo! here ! 
or, Lo ! there ! believe it not ” “ if they shall say, 
Behold ! he is in the secret chambers,” (of some 
Conclave or Council of Divines,) “ or, Behold ! he 
is in the wilderness,” (inspiring some enthusiastic 
and disorderly pretender to a new light,) “ go not 
after them.” Whether they fix on this or on that 
particular Church as the abode of such inspired 
authority,—or on the Universal Church 1 —which, 
again, is to be marked out either as consisting of 
the numerical majority,” 1 —or, the majority of those 

1 See Note A, at the end of this Essay. 

m Some are accustomed to cite a passage from a work of 
Vincentius Lirinensis, describing the Catholic Faith as what 
has been held “ always, every where, and by all.” And 
certainly if any doctrine were broached which no Christians 
hitherto, of any age or country, should appear to have received, 
there would he a moral certainty, that this could not be any 
part of the Christian Faith. And if, again, any doctrine 
could be proved to have been universally received as a part of 
the faith, we could not doubt its being such. But there is no 
one, I suppose, who would limit within these bounds the 
articles of his creed, rejecting everything that had ever been 
denied by any. 


153 


sect. 4 .] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 

who lived within a certain (arbitrarily fixed) period , 
—or, a majority of the sound and orthodox believers, 
— i. e. of those in agreement with the persons who 
so designate them,—all these, in their varying 
opinions as to the seat of the supposed inspired 
authority, are alike in this; that they are following 
no track marked out by Christ or his Apostles, but 
merely their own unauthorized conjectures. While 
one sets up a golden image in Bethel, and another 
in Dan, saying, “ These be thy gods, O Israel! ” 
all are, in fact, “ going astray after their own in¬ 
ventions,” and “ worshipping the work of their 
own hands.” 

For however vehemently any one may decry “ the 
pride of intellect,” and the presumption of exercising 
private judgment, it is plain that that man is setting 
up, as the absolute and ultimate standard of divine 
truth, the opinions held by himself or his party, 11 if 
these are to be the decisive test of what is orthodoxy, 
and orthodoxy again, the test of the genuine Church, 
and the Church, the authoritative oracle of Gospel- 
truth. And yet this slightly-circuitous mode of 
setting up the decrees of fallible Man as the 
object of religious veneration and faith, will often 
be found to succeed in deluding the unwary. 
n See Note B, at the end of this Essay. 


154 Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

This error (as, indeed, is usually the case) is 
fostered by errors on the opposite side. Some men 
certainly do indulge such an enthusiastic and exces¬ 
sive passion for mental independence, as blinds them 
to the just claim others may have to an attentive 
and respectful hearing : many a one, in his dread 
of a slavish submission to fallible fellow-mortals, is 
apt to forget that he is fallible—and perhaps more 
fallible—himself. Many a one is misled by an 
over-estimate of the knowledge or ability of himself 
or of some favourite leader; or by a love of novelty 
or singularity: and many are prone to forget, that 
what is left to private judgment , is not therefore left 
to cajprice and inclination; but that the right of 
judging implies a duty , and imposes a heavy respon¬ 
sibility. 0 They forget that they are called on, not 
only “ to prove all things,” but to “ hold fast 
that which is good.” 

Hence, others, in their dread of these faults, 
which they regard as the worse and the more preva¬ 
lent, rush into the contrary extreme, and, (either 
sincerely, or insincerely,) maintain,—by way of 
being on the safe side,—those exaggerated views of 
church-authority above alluded to; and decry all 
employment of private judgment, without consider- 
° See Hawkins on the “ Duty of Private Judgment.” 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching, 155 

ing that every one must , whether he will or no, exer¬ 
cise his private judgment, at least for once , in deter¬ 
mining to whose guidance he shall resign himself. p 

And again, this extreme, in its turn, produces a 
reaction towards the other. For there is no safe 
side but the side of truth and justice; and he who 
seeks to support the rightful claims of a Church by 
asserting such as are groundless, is taking the most 
effectual means to defeat, in the end, his own object. 

§ 5. As for the powers and offices which Jesus 
Christ did commit permanently to his Church and 
ministers, I do not, of course, design at present to 
enter on the discussion of a subject so multifarious, 
and so important ; q but I will take this occasion 
briefly to suggest—and merely suggest,—for the 
reader’s own consideration, an analogy, which 
appears to me both just in itself, and calculated to 
afford, if dwelt on and followed up in private reflec¬ 
tion, an instructive elucidation of most of the 
questions relative to the subject. 

The analogy I allude to, is between God s natural, 

p See Note C, at tlie end of this Essay. 

q It has been more fully treated of in Essay II. on the 
“ Kingdom of Christ.” 


156 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

and his supernatural gifts;—between i.e. the Ma¬ 
terial World on the one hand, and the Christian 
Revelation on the other. There are two volumes, 
as it were, both by the same divine Author, spread 
out before us for our instruction and benefit, from 
each of which we may learn something of his deal¬ 
ings, so as to apply what we learn to our own prac¬ 
tical advantage. One of these may be called the 
book of Nature—the system of the created Universe; 
the other, the record of Inspiration ; and there is, 
as I have said, a correspondence in many points 
between the two. 

For as Man is capable of becoming, by attentive 
observation, acquainted with many of the substances 
that exist in Nature, and of learning more or less 
of their properties, and the laws (so called) to which 
they are subject, and is enabled thence to apply 
these to his own uses, but is quite incapable of either 
creating any substance, or changing the laws of 
Nature,—so it is also in respect of Revelation. 
Man,— i. e. uninspired Man, by attentive study of 
the Scriptures, may learn much of God’s dealings 
with our Race, and of his gracious offers and 
promises; and may so apply this knowledge, and 
avail himself of those offers, as to become “ wise unto 


157 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching . 

salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus/’ 
but he can no more make or alter a revelation, than 
he can set aside the physical laws of the Universe; 
nor must he therefore “ teach us with authority/’ 
or pronounce, independently of an appeal to Scrip¬ 
ture, what is the meaning of Scripture, and what 
are the designs of the Most High, and the Faith and 
the duties of Christians. 

“ Man,” says the illustrious Lord Bacon/ “ having 
the office of attending on Nature, and studying to 
ascertain her meaning, (‘ Naturae minister et in- 
terpres/) is limited in his knowledge and his power, 
by the observations he has made of the course of 
Nature:” for “Nature,” he adds, “can be con¬ 
trolled only by submitting to her laws.” 8 And 
again, “In all our performances we can do nothing 
more than apply or remove bodies already existing: 
the rest nature accomplishes within.” t 

In these, and many similar passages, the words of 
this great man, with a very slight alteration, are 
applicable, with equal truth, to our Religion; and 

r Nov. Org. 

s “ Naturae non iinperatur nisi parendo.” 

1 “ Ad opera nihil aliud potest Homo, quam ut corpora 
naturalia admoveat et amoveat: reliqua Natura intus trans¬ 
mit.” 


158 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 


his maxims so applied, are not less valuable, or 
less needed, than in the analogous case of Philo¬ 
sophy" 

It is the office of a Church—of all its members 
in some degree, and of its ministers more espe¬ 
cially—to be students (and helpers of other stu¬ 
dents) of God’s revealed will, as recorded in the 
inspired writings;—in that second volume , as it 
were, of the divine laws and instructions:—always 
appealing to those Scriptures, even as a sound 
natural philosopher does to observations of the 
existing course of nature; not, like many of Bacon’s 
predecessors, to the arbitrary assumptions—the ipse 
dixit —of any human master. And again, we must 
do this without pretending (any more than a sound 
philosopher does in his department) to an infallible 


u Bacon himself seems to have had in his mind the appli¬ 
cability,—though the nature of his design did not allow him 
to follow out the application—of his principles to theology. 
This is in some degree indicated by the very illustration he 
employs in calling deceptive resemblances of Truth, u Idols.” 
See also Aph. 68, Nov. Org. 

It may he worth while here to remark, that while all the 
“ Idola ” of Bacon find a place in theology as well as Philo¬ 
sophy, those most prevalent are the “ Idola Theatri.” Aph. 44, 
Nov. Org. 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 159 

rectitude in our judgment even of the meaning of 
all that is placed before us; but humbly trusting 
that in proportion to the candour and diligence with 
which we employ, on that study, the faculties and 
means God has given, we shall be enabled to reap 
the harvest of sound knowledge. 

It is for us again to impart the Gospel of the 
Redeemer to our children and to the Heathen, 
“ preaching not ourselves, but Christ Jesus our 
Lord even as the sound philosopher gives instruc¬ 
tion in what he has learned of the constitution and 
course of Nature, to those who are ignorant, and 
puts them in the way to verify for themselves the 
facts and principles taught. 

And lastly, as in the natural world, Man has 
practically availed himself of his knowledge, by 
exposing wheels to the stream, and sails to the 
wind,—by constructing various machines and in¬ 
struments, for applying to his own use the expansive 
powers of steam, and the force of gravitation,— 
but without ever dreaming of changing the proper¬ 
ties of air and water and fire, or of destroying 
gravitation, and the other laws of Nature, or of 
constructing engines in defiance of those laws,—so, 
it is the part of a sound Church, to endeavour, by 


160 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 


Liturgies,—Catchisms,—Rituals for the celebration 
of Christian ordinances, x —and by other edifying 
means of divine grace, to apply to her members, 
and to help them to avail themselves of, the bene¬ 
fits,—the offers,—the promises, which God and not 
Man, has provided for his People in the Gospel; 
but not to presume to add to, or to alter, by any 
authority of her own, the terms of Salvation pre¬ 
scribed by Christ and his inspired Apostles. y 

Those again who fall into the opposite extreme 
of rejecting or slighting Church-formularies and 


x See Essay IV. (Third Series,) § 7, p. 223. 
y See Essays (Third Series,) on Romish Errors, Essay IV. 
§ 5, p. 206 ; and § 7, p. 224. Much confusion of thought 
and misapprehension have arisen from not duly attending to 
the distinction between “ terms of Communion,” and “ terms 
of Salvation.” It is one thing to lay down certain articles of 
faith, an agreement in which is required of all who are to be 
reckoned as members of a certain particular Church; and 
quite another thing to denounce as excluded from the Gospel 
Covenant all who do not assent to certain articles. 

That such and such articles are essential parts of Christian 
faith , we may think and believe ; without claiming any right 
to pronounce an infallible judgment thereon. But that they 
are essential articles of the creed of a particular Church , we 
may know with certainty; because that Church has a right to 
declare and make them such. 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christs Teaching. 161 

Institutions,—of undervaluing regularity of ap¬ 
pointment of Ministers,—ecclesiastical discipline,— 
and in short all human Ordinances relating to 
religion, and all human means of instruction in it, 
—these are analogous to persons who should re¬ 
solve, on the ground that Man cannot create the 
Elements, and control the laws of Nature, — to 
reject all machinery, all instruments, and buildings 
and arts, contrived by Man, and to live, like the 
rudest savages, or like the lower animals, on the 
spontaneous products of nature; and who should 
leave their children, unbiassed and unprejudiced,— 
i. e. wholly uninstructed,—to make out for them¬ 
selves whatever Sciences or Arts they could, by 
their own natural powers, from their own unas¬ 
sisted contemplations of Nature. 

The analogy I have thus briefly touched on, 
between the pursuit of physical and of religious 
truth, is one which the reader may find it easy and 
interesting and instructive to dwell on and fully 
develop in private reflection; and which may be 
followed out through several different branches. 
He will find {e. g. in what relates to belief) a corre¬ 
spondence between the state of philosophy — or 
rather what passed for philosophy—in former times, 


M 


162 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

—when the “ anticipation of Nature” (as Bacon 
expresses it) was put in the place of the “ interpre¬ 
tation of Nature;” when the arbitrary conjectural 
hypotheses of some revered master were laid down, 
as eternal, immutable, necessary principles, and the 
phenomena of nature either disregarded, or strained 
into an agreement with these,—he will find a cor¬ 
respondence between this and the most corrupt 
condition of theology; when the decisions of un¬ 
inspired men, or Bodies of men, were made to 
occupy the rightful place of the inspired Scripture. 
And again,—in respect of practice,—he will find 
the pretensions of Magic and Alchymy—the arts 
by which Nature’s laws were to be controlled , not 
followed, and substances transmuted,—he will find 
these answering to assumptions no less arrogant 
and groundless, of an authority in religious matters, 
such as goes to rival and ultimately supersede that 
of the Lord and his Apostles, and to “ make the 
Word of God of none effect.” 

For many ages it was taken for granted that the 
motions of the heavenly bodies must be regulated 
by totally different laws from terrestrial; and that 
consequently no mechanical knowledge drawn from 
the observation of these last, could be suitably 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 163 

applied in astronomy. It was afterwards ascer¬ 
tained that the same physical laws pervade the 
whole universe, as far as we have been able to ex¬ 
tend our observation; though many of the heavenly 
bodies are beyond the reach of the naked eye; and 
an indefinite amount besides may lie beyond the 
reach of the telescope. The error of those ancient 
astronomers is somewhat analogous to that of the 
many persons who scarcely seem to think of em¬ 
ploying their ordinary good sense in the application 
of the truths of revealed religion; as if there were 
something presumptuous in proceeding according to 
reason, in reference to things which reason could 
not have discovered. There are not a few accord¬ 
ingly who embrace, or at least act on, such princi¬ 
ples in respect of religious matters, as they would 
consider most absurd in common life. Against this 
error our Lord seems to have been guarding us in 
the numerous and varied Parables , in which He sets 
forth the analogy between the affairs of common life 
and those pertaining to religion. The facts indeed 
which He revealed are such as unaided Man could 
not have known; any more than the satellites of the 
remotest planets could be seen by the unaided eye : 
but He evidently meant that these facts, when made 
m 2 


164 


Banger of an Erroneous. [essay un¬ 
known, should be applied to ourselves and our own 
conduct, through the divine blessing on the diligent 
exertion of our own common sense. 

The error again of those who have entered on 
physical speculations beyond the reach of Man’s 
powers, such as those concerning the real essence 
of Matter—the possible modes of its creation, &c. 
this, corresponds to a similar vain and presumptuous 
speculation (of which one may see but too much) 
on those unrevealed divine mysteries whereof reason 
cannot and Scripture will not give us any distinct 
ideas. 

There is, however, this important difference 
between the two cases: that in the things per¬ 
taining to the material world, it is incomparably 
easier to detect errors or false pretensions,—espe¬ 
cially errors in practice—than in things pertaining 
to religion. False physical theories are refuted by 
observations of facts : engines that will not work,— 
astrological predictions which fail,—and other such 
mistakes or impostures, bring with them, before 
long, their own complete exposure. But it is not 
till the great “ day of harvest” that the spiritual 
tares sown by “ the Enemy,” will be finally sepa¬ 
rated from the wheat;—that the “ wood, hay and 


sect. 5.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 165 

stubble/’ which Man may have built upon Christ’s 
foundation, will be finally detected by the fire. And 
in the mean time, it requires our unceasing vigi¬ 
lance to “ take heed that we be not deceived” by 
specious pretensions. 

That our own Church abstains from, and dis¬ 
allows, all such arrogant assumptions as I have been 
speaking of, it is almost superfluous to remark. Her 
articles distinctly declare, not only the possibility, 
but the actual occurrence, of error, both in Churches, 
and in what are called general Councils; and conse¬ 
quently, that these are not authorized to lay down as 
an essential point of Faith anything which cannot be 
proved 2 from Scripture. And the creeds which our 
Church retained, whatever respect they claim from 
being anciently and widely received,—are retained 
expressly on the ground of their being so proved. 

These principles are the more important to be 
steadily kept in view, because it is conceivable that 
two persons, members of the same Church, whose 
Confession of faith they both hold, may yet differ 

z The words “ unless it may be declared (ostendi potest) 
that they be taken out of Holy Scripture,” might mislead a 
modern English reader. The sense is—“ unless it can be 
proved” 


166 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

widely in a most important point, if it happen that 
the one holds those tenets on the authority of his 
Church, neglecting and deprecating further inquiry, 
and the other has diligently and ingenuously 
searched the Scriptures, “ to see whether those 
things be soif, in short, the one has aimed at 
orthodoxy, and the other at truth. For though 
these will coincide, whenever it happens that the 
prevailing opinion (which is what is usually under¬ 
stood by orthodoxy) is the correct one,—still, the 
one refers to the standard of Man’s judgment, the 
other, to that of God’s infallible Word. Though 
both happening to coincide in particular conclusions, 
one man may be evincing the disposition of those 
who in earlier times rejected Christianity : the other, 
of those who embraced it. 

§ 6. Lastly it must never be forgotten by those 
who would profit by the example Christ and his 
Apostles have left us, that the authority He claimed 
was in no way connected with temporal power. His 
resisting the attempts of the people to make Him 
king—his refusing, when applied to, to act as 
“judge or divider,” in a secular matter—his exhor¬ 
tation to “ render to Caesar the things that are 


sect. 6.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 167 

Caesar’s”—his not allowing the disciples to protect 
him by the sword a —and, when accused of “ making 
Himself king,” his solemn renunciation of a “ king¬ 
dom of this world—and again, that his Apostles 
likewise always earnestly inculcated, by precept and 
example, the Christian duty of submission to the 
rulers—the ^Christian rulers, be it remembered,—of 
their times and countries—all this must be well-known 
to every one even moderately versed in Scripture. 

And yet a large proportion of professed followers 
of Christ, in various ages, and of various persua¬ 
sions, including our own, have maintained that it is 
the right and the duty (it must be both , if it be either) 
of kings or other civil governors, in a Christian 
country, to secure the spiritual welfare of the people 
by enforcing the profession of the true faith. The 
sovereign is to prohibit, it is said, all open avowal 
(which indeed is the utmost that Man can prohibit) 
of erroneous notions of religion, under the penalty 
either of death, or exile, or some other positive 
punishment, or at least of being excluded from the 
rights of citizenship, like the Gibeonites in Israel, 
or the Helots in Lacedaemon. b 

a See Note D, at the end of this Essay. 

b See Note E, at the end of this Essay. 


168 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

This glaring discrepancy between Christianity as 
taught by its Founder, and the religion taught by 
so many of his professed followers, raises an ob¬ 
jection against the Christian religion, stronger 
perhaps, in practice, than any other. 0 

How then is it attempted to explain away this 
discrepancy? Sometimes by alleging, that Jesus, 
in declaring his “ kingdom to be not of this world,” 
meant not to disclaim anything, but merely to 
assert his claim to spiritual dominion; as if that 
had anything to do with the charge brought against 
Him before Pilate ! Pie was charged with designing 
to set up a kingdom that would interfere with the 
Roman emperors ; and He distinctly disavowed what 
was imputed to Him. 

Sometimes it is pretended, that He merely dis¬ 
claimed a kingdom over which He should reign on 
earth in person , and which should be immediatelg 
established at that time ; but, that He meant His 
followers , at a future time , to claim, as such , a 
monopoly of secular power, wherever they should 
be sufficiently numerous, and to put down by force 
all false religion. d It would have been detrimental 

c See Essay I. on the Kingdom of Christ. 

A “ To put down false creeds,” says Chrysostom, (( by 


sect. 6.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 169 

(I have heard it said) to the cause of Christianity in 
its early infancy,—before the Gospel had been 
widely preached, and generally received,—to have 
at once attempted enforcing the profession of it by 
secular power, and excluding from civil rights all 
who did not embrace it. This step was meant to 
be reserved, it seems, till Christians should have 
acquired sufficient power. What! greater power 
than twelve legions of angels? which Jesus de¬ 
clared He could summon to his aid whenever He 
would! If He did really possess this boundless 
supernatural power, and had thought it consistent 
with the character of his religion so to employ it, 
surely he would have armed his disciples with that 
force which would have insured an unresisted and 
immediate acknowledgment of Him. 

But that this would have been detrimental, and 
indeed destructive, to the cause of his religion, I do 

external power is not permitted to the Christians ; by persua¬ 
sion, by conviction, and by love alone, may they work towards 
the salvation of mankind.” I cite the words of this Father, 
as showing that this change in the character of the religion, 
which goes to make Christ’s a kingdom of this world, was 
not very early or very suddenly introduced and recognised. 
See “ Life of Chrysostom,” translated from Neander, by Rev. 
J. C. Stapleton, vol. i. p. 50. 


170 


Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

believe; because compulsion, either at that time, or 
at any other, would have changed the whole cha¬ 
racter of Christ’s religion, by making that a “ king¬ 
dom of this world ” which He never designed to 
be such. 

As for all those, more or less ingenious, explana¬ 
tions (such as I have slightly alluded to) by which 
it has been attempted to reconcile the enforcement 
of a religious profession by the secular power of the 
civil magistrate, with the declarations of Christ and 
his Apostles, it is important to observe, that it 
matters not, in this case, what meaning, distinct 
from the obvious and simple one, their language 
can be brought to bear; since it is quite manifest in 
what sense they themselves intended to be understood? 

e See Essay V. (Third Series) on Persecution, §§ 4, 5. 
Professor Powell has ably pointed out the importance of 
attending to this distinction; which is perpetually overlooked 
or forgotten in practice, though when distinctly stated it 
appears almost a truism. “ When a commentator of the 
present day sets about to put a particular interpretation on a 
passage in an ancient author, he may, upon an examination 
of the critical sense of the words, and the construction of the 
sentence, make out a meaning which to him is plausible, and 
in itself consistent. But there is another question entirely 
distinct from this, too often quite overlooked, but essentially 
important to a true interpretation : viz. whether it is probable, 


sect. 6.] Imitation of Christs Teaching. 171 

When accused or suspected of designing to set up 
a system of temporal domination, they solemnly 
renounced it; frankly avowing, indeed, their deter¬ 
mination, at all hazards, to convert by persuasion all 
whom they could persuade, but utterly disclaiming 
all secular coercion in behalf of their religion. Now 
it would be absurd to suppose they meant to be 
understood as disclaiming this, merely on the part 
of themselves individually , and not, of their followers; 
—as designing that these should claim a monopoly 
of civil power as soon as they should become, in each 
country, sufficiently numerous to enforce that claim; 
—and should abstain from attempting forcibly to 
suppress other religions, only till they should be 
strong enough to succeed. This would evidently 
have been to plead guilty to the charge brought 


from concurrent circumstances, that this was the sense, in 
point of fact, actually intended by the author. It is one thing 
to make out such a sense as, to our apprehension, the words 
may bear , quite another to infer that this was the sense really 
in the mind of the writer .” It should be added, that a profane 
writer may have really intended to convey a sense different 
from that which his expressions (through his injudicious use 
of language) do and must convey to all except one in ten 
thousand. Now we can hardly attribute so great a practical 
error to the sacred writers. 


172 Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

against them : for doubtless the very thing appre¬ 
hended by the Roman Rulers, was, that this sect, 
small and weak at its source, would, as it rolled 
onwards and increased, become a mighty flood of 
temporal domination and coercive power. 

It is plain, therefore, that the first Christian 
preachers must have meant to be understood as 
disclaiming all such designs; unless, indeed, they 
were men so destitute, not only of superhuman 
wisdom, but even of common intelligence, as not to 
be aware of the obvious sense which their words 
could not fail to convey. And to suppose that they 
had a secret meaning, different from what they 
intended to convey ,—to suppose this, on the ground 
that their words can be brought to bear another 
sense, is to represent them as crafty and base 
hypocrites/ 

§ 7. Observe then how strong are the objections 
to Christianity raised up by those who justify the 
employment of secular coercion in its behalf. In 
the first place, a doubt is raised of our Lord’s un¬ 
limited power. Since He did not arm himself or 
his disciples with an overwhelming force—a host of 
f See Note F, at the end of this Essay. 


sect. 7.] Imitation of Christs Teaching . 173 

angelic legions—which would have compelled sub¬ 
mission, this must have been either from want of 
the will , or from want of the power . Either He 
judged (as He himself declared) that compulsion was 
adverse to the spirit of his religion, or else, He must 
have lacked the power to exercise it; and, conse¬ 
quently, his pretensions to the possession of that 
power must have been false; so as to justify the 
taunt of his enemies, “ He saved others, Himself He 
cannot save.” Those who reject the former side of 
the alternative have never succeeded, nor are ever 
likely to succeed, in escaping the other, by any 
explanation that will be generally satisfactory. 

And then again, if He and his Apostles be repre¬ 
sented as defending themselves from the censure of 
the civil magistrate, by disowning designs which 
they secretly entertained, and using expressions of 
deceitful ambiguity, which they meant to be under¬ 
stood in one sense at the time, to serve a present 
purpose, and in another sense afterwards, when the 
occasion should serve for Christ’s ministers to un¬ 
sheath again in his cause the sword He had bid them 
put up—this is to impute to them a deliberate and 
fraudulent equivocation. 

And this objection is the more formidable, inas- 


174 


Danger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

much as it is likely to operate the most forcibly on 
the most ingenuous and honourable minds; such 
as are the most disgusted at all double-dealing and 
dishonest artifice. 

In no way can this objection be effectually 
repelled, but by admitting that Jesus and his 
Apostles meant precisely what they said, in the plain 
and simple sense of the words, without any hidden 
designs or mental reservations; and that we are 
utterly departing from their model if we practise 
or sanction the employment of any kind of force 
in the cause of our religion, except the force of 
persuasive argument. 

But the correct view of the examples they have 
set, furnishes—instead of an objection to Chris¬ 
tianity—a strong argument for its divine origin; 
i. e. an argument against its human origin. For 
since the natural disposition of man appears to lean 
so strongly towards the employment of coercion in 
behalf of one's own faith, as to operate even in despite 
of the precepts and examples of our Master and 
his Apostles, and leads men to explain away those 
precepts, and wrest them from their obvious sense, 
—how utterly improbable is it, that men left to 
themselves—and especially Jews —not having before 


sect. 8.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 175 

them those precepts, but educated under a far 
different dispensation, should of themselves have 
devised the first system of religious tolerance that 
ever existed in the world ! 

Paul, the conscientious unconverted Jew, “ verily 
thought that he ought to do many things ” against 
what he deemed an erroneous faith; such as 
“ dragging men and women, bound,” before the 
Jewish rulers, and aiding to stone them. Paul 
the Christian, declares that “ the servant of the 
Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men ; 
in meekness instructing them that oppose them¬ 
selves.” The change in his faith, was not, you 
observe, greater than in his views as to the mode of 
maintaining and propagating his faith. And that 
these views must have proceeded from Heaven, and 
not from “ the natural man,” is proved by every 
instance of intolerance which (in spite of Paul’s 
instructions and example) has ever occurred among 
Christians. 

§ 8. In this point then, no less than in the others 
before mentioned, it is most important sedulously 
to guard against that false and spurious imitation 
of our great Master and his inspired servants, which 


176 Banger of an Erroneous [essay hi. 

is, in reality, the widest possible departure from 
them. 

They displayed, we know, and inculcated, the 
most courageous zeal in the cause of religious truth • 
they bid us “ contend earnestly for the faith and 
in conformity with them, we, the members of this 
Church, are engaged at baptism to “ fight manfully 
under the banner of Christ crucified, against sin, 
the world, and the deviland the ministers of 
the Church are especially pledged “ with all faith¬ 
ful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous 
doctrines contrary to God’s word.” g 

Now, if any persons should imagine that this 
zeal—this “contending for the faith”—this fighting 
against, and “ driving out of error”—are to be 
attempted by the “ arm of flesh ”—by secular force 
—by the sword of the civil magistrate—by other 
means, in short, than the “ meekness of instruction,” 
joined to the recommendation of an exemplary life 
—they will be, in fact, reversing what Christ 
teaches, and discarding and opposing a most essen¬ 
tial principle of his religion; “ not knowing what 
manner of spirit they are of,” h 


8 See Ordination Service. 


h See Charge of 1845. 


177 


sect. 8.] Imitation of Christ's Teaching. 

And so also, in the other points above mentioned, 
a rash and unwise imitator becomes (as 1 observed 
at the beginning) not merely unlike the example 
proposed, but opposite to it. 

To assign to Bodies of fallible men that kind of 
authority which properly belongs to God and his 
inspired messengers—this, while bearing some out¬ 
ward resemblance to humble Christian piety, is, in 
reality, of the nature of idolatry. 

If we, again, should teach as on our own indi¬ 
vidual authority, we should be imitating Christ in 
the same way as a usurping pretender imitates a 
rightful sovereign : and our hearers, if they should 
admit such groundless pretensions, would resemble 
Christ’s disciples in the same way that zealous rebels, 
the devoted adherents of a usurper, resemble royal 
subjects. 

And lastly, the credulity which neither requires 
nor admits evidence—which neither asks nor gives 
“ a reason for the Christian’s hope,” but shuts men’s 
ears against reason,—this, while it bears the sem¬ 
blance of the faith which Christ inculcated, is, in 
reality, precisely that want of faith with which those 
were charged who rejected Him. 

It is for us, then, both Ministers and People, so 


N 


178 Banger of an Erroneous , Sfc. [essay hi. 

to follow, diligently and carefully—the steps of our 
blessed Master, as truly to profit by his example; 
“ taking heed that we be not deceived ” by false 
Christs, coming in his name; that is, (in relation to 
us, in these days) by false imitations of Christ. 
Following Him, not only with active exertion, but 
also with cautious self-examination and self-distrust 
—“ working out our salvation with fear and trem¬ 
bling/’ but also, with reliance on his support “ who 
worketh in us,” we shall have the cheering hope of 
advancing continually in that knowledge of Him, 
and resemblance to Him, which will then only be 
completed in his faithful servants when finally ad¬ 
mitted into his presence. For “ we know that 
when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for 
we shall see Him as He is/’ and “ when we awake 
up after his likeness, we shall be satisfied with it.” 


NOTES. 


Note A, page 152. 

On the Supposed Decisions of the Universal Church . 

Questions concerning the degree of deference due to 
the “ Decisions of the Church,” one may sometimes hear 
discussed, by persons who appear to mean, not, any par¬ 
ticular Church (possessing “ power,” according to our 
Articles/ “ to ordain rites and ceremonies,” which need 
not “ be in all places one, and utterly alike ”) but the 
Catholic or Universal Church, comprising the whole 
number of believers throughout the world : as if there 
were some accessible record of such decisions, such as 
we have of the acts of any Legislative Body; and as if 
there existed some recognised functionaries, regularly 
authorized to govern and to represent that community, 
the Church of Christ; and answering to the king—senate 
—or other constituted authorities, in any secular com¬ 
munity/ And yet no shadow of proof can be offered 
that the Church, in the above sense,—the Universal 

a Art. xx. and xxxiv. 

See Essay II. on the “ Kingdom of Christ.” 

N 2 



180 Supposed Decisions oj 

Church,—can possibly give any decision at all;—that it 
has any constituted authorities as the organs by which 
such decision could be framed or promulgated;—or, in 
short, that there is, or ever was, any one community on 
earth , recognised, or having any claim to be recognised, 
as the Universal Church, bearing rule over and compre¬ 
hending all particular Churches. 

“ We are wont to speak of the foundation of the 
Church,—the authority of the Church,—the various cha¬ 
racteristics of the Church,—and the like,—as if the Church 
were, originally at least, One Society in all respects. 
From the period in which the Gospel was planted beyond 
the precincts of Judsea, this manifestly ceased to be the 
case; and as Christian societies were formed among 
people more and more unconnected and dissimilar in 
character and circumstances, the difficulty of considering 
the Church as One Society increases. Still, from the 
habitual and unreflecting use of this phrase, ‘ the 
Church,’ it is no uncommon case to confound the two 
notions; and occasionally to speak of the various societies 
of Christians as one , occasionally, as distinct bodies. 
The mischief which has been grafted on this inadvertency 
in the use of the term, has already been noticed; and it 
is no singular instance of the enormous practical results 
which may be traced to mere ambiguity of expression. 
The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the Human Race 
one; but not as a society . It was from the first com¬ 
posed of distinct societies; which were called one, because 
formed on common principles. It is One Society only 
when considered as to its future existence. The circum- 


the Universal Church. 


181 


stance of its having one common Head, Christ, one Spirit, 
one Father, are points of unity, which no more make the 
Church One Society on earth, than the circumstance of 
all men having the same Creator, and being derived from 
the same Adam, renders the Human Race One Family. 
That Scripture often speaks of Christians generally under 
the term ‘ the Church,’ is true; but if we wish fully to 
understand the force of the term so applied, we need 
only call to mind the frequent analogous use of ordinary 
historical language when no such doubt occurs. Take, 
for example, Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian 
War. It contains an account of the transactions of two 
opposed parties, each made up of many distinct commu¬ 
nities ; on the one side were Democracies, on the other 
Oligarchies. Yet precisely the same use is made by 
the historian of the terms f the Democracy’ and ‘ the 
Oligarchy,’ as we find Scripture adopting with regard to 
the term ‘ the Church.’ No one is misled by these, so 
as to suppose the Community of Athens one with that of 
Corcyra, or the Theban with that of the Lacedaemonian. 
When the heathen writer speaks of ‘ the Democracy of’ 
or ‘ in ’ the various democratical States, we naturally 
understand him to mean distinct Societies formed on 
similar principles; and so, doubtless, ought we to inter¬ 
pret the sacred writers when they, in like manner, make 
mention of the Church of, or in, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, 
Corinth, &c. 

“ But there was also an especial reason why the term 
Church should have been often used by the sacred writers 
as if it applied to One Society. God’s dispensation had 


182 


Supposed Decisions of 


hitherto been limited to a single society,—the Jewish 
People. Until the Gospel was preached, the Church of 
God was One Society. It therefore sometimes occurs 
with the force of a transfer from the objects of God’s 
former dispensation, to those of his present dispensation. 
In like manner, as Christians are called ‘ the Elect,’ 
their bodies ‘ the Temple,’ and their Mediator, ‘ the 
High Priest;’ so, their condition, as the objects of God’s 
new- dispensation, is designated by the term ‘ the Church 
of Christ,’ and f the Church.’ 

“ The Church is one , then, not as consisting of One 
Society, but because the various societies or Churches 
were then modelled, and ought still to be so, on the same 
principles ; and because they enjoy common privileges,— 
one Lord, one Spirit, one baptism. Accordingly, the 
Holy Ghost, through his agents the Apostles, has not 
left any detailed account of the formation of any Chris¬ 
tian society; but He has very distinctly marked the 
great principles on which all were to be founded, what¬ 
ever distinctions may exist amongst them. In short, 
the foundation of the Church by the Apostles was not 
analogous to the work of Romulus, or Solon ; it was 
not, properly, the foundation of Christian societies 
which occupied them, but the establishment of the 
principles on which Christians in all ages might form 
societies for themselves .” 0 

The above account is sufficiently established even by 
the mere negative circumstance of the absence of all 

c Encyclopaedia Metropolitana. “ Age of Apostolical Fathers,” 
p. 774. 


the Universal Church . 


183 


mention in the Sacred Writings of any one Society on earth, 
having a Government and officers of its own, and recog¬ 
nised as the Catholic or universal Church : especially 
when it is considered that the frequent mention of the 
particular Churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, 
Corinth, &c.—of the seven Churches in Asia,—and of 
“ the care of all the Churches” which Paul had founded, 
would have rendered unavoidable the notice of the One 
Church (had there been any such) which bore rule over 
all the rest, either as its subjects, or as provincial depart¬ 
ments of it. 

This negative evidence, I say, would alone be fully 
sufficient, considering that the whole burden of proof 
lies on the side of those who set up such a claim. He 
who appeals to the alleged decisions of a certain com¬ 
munity, is clearly bound, in the first place, to prove its 
existence. But if we proceed to historical evidence, we 
find on examination that there never was a time when the 
supremacy of any one Church was acknowledged by all, 
or nearly all Christians. And to say that they ought 
to have done so, and that as many as have refused such 
submission are to be regarded as schismatics and rebels, 
is evidently to prejudge the question. 

The universal Church, then, being one , in reference, 
not to any one Government on earth, but only to our 
Divine Head, even Christ, ruling Christians by his Spirit, 
which spoke to them from time to time through the 
Apostles while these were living, and speak still in the 
words of the Christian Scriptures, it follows that each 
Christian is bound (as far as Church-authority extends) 


184 


Appeals to Scripture 


to submit to the ordinances and decisions,—not repugnant 
to Scripture/—of the particular Church of which he 
is a member. 

If it were possible that all the Christians now in 
existence—suppose 250 millions—could assemble, either 
in person, or by deputations of their respective Clergy, in 
one place, to confer together ; and that the votes, whether 
personal or by proxy, of 230 , or 240 millions of these 
were to be at variance (as in many points they probably 
would be) with the decisions and practices of our own 
Church; we should be no more bound to acquiesce in 
and adopt the decision of that majority, even in matters 
which we do not regard as essential to the Christian 
Faith, than we should be, to pass a law for this realm 
because it was approved by the majority of \he human race. 


Note B, page 153. 

On Appeals to Scripture as the Standard. 

It is important to observe that there is, under an out¬ 
ward and apparent difference, a close substantial resem¬ 
blance between those who exalt the most highly the 
claims of Church-tradition, and some of their most vehe¬ 
ment opponents. To decry private judgment and the 
pride of intellect, and appeal to the consent of the ortho¬ 
dox Fathers and the decisions of the Church, at the 
same time deciding who is orthodox and what is the 
Church according to our own judgment, and by the 


See Art. xxxiv. 


as the Standard. 


185 


exercise of our own intellect; or, on the other hand, to 
decry Tradition, and appeal professedly to Scripture as 
the standard and rule of faith, but in reality making the 
standard our own interpretation of Scripture; these are 
in fact but two different forms of what may be called 
“ self-idolatry.” And there are persons who, uncon¬ 
sciously, fall into this latter error ;—who profess to 
appeal to Scripture as their rule of faith, and final 
decider of all controversies, but denounce (as the 
Gnostics 6 of the earlier ages did) any one whose views 
differ from their own—though he may be, perhaps, a 
diligent and learned student of the sacred writings,— 
as “not knowing the Gospel,”—as blind—carnal—un¬ 
converted—“ not understanding the things that be of 
God,” f &c. 

“ And where is the difference,” it may be asked, 
“ between taking for our rule of faith, the Scriptures, 
or our own interpretation of them ? since the mere 
words of Scripture cannot be any guide unless we attach 
some meaning to them; and what meaning can we 
attach, except that which appears to us the true 
one ?” Thus insidiously does self-estimation and reve¬ 
rence for one’s own party creep in under the disguise of 
veneration for God’s Word! I would answer, it is true 
that in taking Scripture for our own guide, we must be 
led by what appears—according to the best of our judg¬ 
ment—to be the sense of Scripture : but when making 
an appeal to Scripture in any discussion with another, 

e So called from their professing exclusively to know the Gospel. 

f See Sermons, p. 127. ♦ 


186 


Appeals to Scripture 


we must refer him to the words of Scripture, and to 
the sense in which he can be brought to understand 
them. It is a very plain case for the application of 
that much-praised, though little-practised rule, of doing 
as we would be done by. Would you think it reason¬ 
able for another man to insist on your adopting his 
sense of Scripture, when it appeared to you not to be 
the true one, and denounce you, if you refused, as not 
knowing the Gospel ? You can have no right then to 
deny him the same freedom of judgment which you 
claim for yourself. 

Will you reply, “ He is wrong, and therefore I ought 
not to adopt his views ; but I am right, and therefore he 
ought to adopt mine?” Suppose this to be, in truth, 
the actual state of the case; are you infallible , that you 
can presume positively to pronounce this ; and gifted 
with such miraculous proofs of infallibility as both 
authorize you to “ judge another’s servant,” and bind 
him to acquiesce in your judgment ? 

Since our great Master, who not only knew the sense 
of Scripture, but also “ knew what was in Man,” pro¬ 
nounced no more against the Sadducees than, " Ye do 
err, not knowing the Scriptures,” it surely becomes a 
fallible mortal to say only, “ I think ye do err.” But 
we certainly do often hear expressions which seem to 
imply (being intelligible on no other supposition) that 
those who use them make their appeal, not, really, to 
Scripture as it meets the eye of every reader, but to their 
own interpretation of it. For instance, one may hear 
it said that, <f in any difficulty, a far more safe and 


as the Standard. 


187 


certain guide is provided for us, than all the wit or 
wisdom of man could furnish. The promise is, that 
* the way-faring man , though a fool , shall not err therein ,’ 
and this promise is made doubly sure by the means 
provided for its accomplishment. c Your heavenly Father 
will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.' Here, 
then, is an interpreter incomparably beyond all that 
man could devise : a sure, an unerring guide: One; 
not a thousand conflicting authorities; and one too, 
obtained by ‘ asking.’ ” And again, that “ what we 
call c Scripture ,’ is a collection of the writings of the 
Apostles, given by them authoritatively, as inspired by 
the Holy Ghost. If we believe their genuineness, and 
the truth of this pretension, we are then immediately 
in the Divine presence;—we are listening to God him¬ 
self ;—we are perfectly free from all tincture or vicinity 
of error.” 

Now admitting that Scripture is a guide in itself 
infallible, — i. e. that we cannot be misled (as in the 
works of fallible men) by errors of the writer , still, it 
can be an infallible guide to us , only so far as we un¬ 
derstand its true sense; and in that, we know, all 
readers are not agreed. Admitting again that the Holy 
Spirit is an infallible interpreter of the Scriptures, still 
we know that different conclusions have been drawn 
from them, by persons, professing, each, to have prayed 
for, and trusting to have received, that spiritual help. 
Those therefore who speak of “ solving every difficulty 
by reference to an unerring guide,” so as to be “ perfectly 
free from all tincture of error,” must mean to refer to 


188 


Private Judgment. 


some known standard that shall decide which of the 
different interpretations of Scripture is the right , and 
which of the parties laying claim to the divine guidance 
of the unerring Spirit, is really so guided. That stan¬ 
dard therefore, to which their ultimate appeal is in fact 
made, must be,—-however disguised in words,— their own 
conviction, and their own interpretation. 

A sincere and candid appeal to the Scriptures them¬ 
selves, made in charitable humility, and not as setting up 
our own judgment as the standard and rule of faith to 
others , consists in simply stating what we consider as the 
scriptural grounds for what we hold and teach, setting 
forth, calmly, and without dogmatic arrogance, or bitter 
reproach, our reasons for believing that the sense we 
attach to the words of the Sacred Writers is correct, and 
consequently that a different interpretation is erroneous. 
And those who, after all, may not adopt the same con¬ 
clusion, but whom we cannot convict of having been 
deficient in careful and candid research, or in humble 
prayer for divine grace, we must leave to the judgment 
of the All-seeing God : “ judging nothing before the 
time, till the Lord come, who will make manifest the 
counsels of men’s hearts.” g 

Note C, page 155. 

On Private Judgment . 

It is often asked whether we are to “ set up each man’s 
private interpretation of Scripture as his rule of faith, 

g 1 Cor. iv. 5. 


Private Judgment. 


189 


or to adopt and acquiesce in the Church’s Tradition.” 11 
This alternative again has been objected to by some, 
who have called it a “ Sophistical dilemma,” 1 and who 
maintain that the rule of faith is to be, neither the one 
nor the other of these, but “ the Scriptures themselves.” 
And this has been illustrated by an analogy drawn from 
the Statute-law of the realm, “ which is each man’s rule 
of life; not meaning, the law according to each man’s 
private interpretation, but, the law itself: ” and even so, 
it is said, “ the Scriptures are our rule of faith ;—the 
Scriptures themselves,—not, the Scriptures as we choose 
to interpret them.” 

This illustration is likely to be triumphantly accepted 
by the strongest advocates of Tradition. “ The law is 
indeed,” they may say, “ of itself a sufficient guide in 
cases where the meaning of the law is agreed on by 
all; but in cases—such as occur every day—where the 

h This latter view is apparently supported by the common trans¬ 
lation of a passage in which the Apostle Paul is represented as 
saying (1 Tim. iii. 15,) that “ the Church is the pillar and ground of 
the truth.” But this rendering depends entirely on a 'punctuation 
which there is every reason to consider as faulty, in attaching to the 
end of one sentence a clause which really belongs to the beginning 
of the next. By altering the punctuation we obtain a sense clearly 
intelligible, easily accordant with the context, and consistent with 
the general tenor of Scripture, instead of being the reverse. StuAos 
ical eSpa'ico/LLO. rrjs aArjOdas, Kal 6/xoAoyovp.evus p.eya, iar\ to rrjs evcrefidas 
HvcT^piov: “ The mystery of Godliness” (i. e. of the Christian Reli¬ 
gion) “ is a pillar and ground of the truth, and confessedly great.” 

1 It is evidently meant to be understood not as a Dilemma, but as 
a Disjunctive argument; wherein one side of an alternative is to be 
inferred from the rejection of the other. 


190 


Private Judgment . 


meaning of the law is disputed,—where two parties, for 
instance, claim each the same property, as lawfully his,— 
there is a manifest necessity for a Court of justice to 
decide authoritatively between the parties : such a Court 
being not a different rule of life to be put instead of the 
law, but a necessary adjunct to the law, which it enables 
us to comply with, by deciding as to its meaning. And 
this,” they may say, “ is what we contend for on behalf 
of Church-tradition. Granting that the Scriptures are 
the rule of faith, still, in cases (and they are numberless) 
where a passage of Scripture is understood differently 
by different persons, there is a necessity (according to 
your own illustration) for some common authority, 
answering to a Court of justice, to decide finally which is 
right.” 

It seems indeed so palpably absurd to bid us decide a 
question as to the meaning of& law, or of Scripture, not by 
a Judge, but by the law itself,—by Scripture itself,—which 
is, to presuppose the true sense of it already ascertained 
and acknowledged,—this, I say, would be such manifest 
trifling, that one must suppose something different from 
this to have been intended by those who thus express 
themselves. Some I believe understand by the words 
“ private interpretation,” that which a man adopts from 
his own inclination or caprice. And certainly one may 
find persons who are prone to this kind of private interpre¬ 
tation ; —who are accustomed to make up their minds 
first, as to what seems to them probable,—reasonable,— 
desirable ; and then to put such a sense on Scripture as 
will best suit their purpose. Men’s minds are perhaps the 


Private Judgment. 


191 


more easily reconciled to such a procedure from being 
familiar with it in what relates to human laws. There are 
few who scruple to avail themselves of any interpretation 
that the words of a law can be made to bear (however 
different from the known intention of the legislator), such 
as will afford them an advantage, and secure them from 
penalties. But it must be evident to any reflecting mind, 
that he who interprets Scripture according to his own 
wishes and preconceived theories, is, in reality, not accom¬ 
modating himself to God’s Word, but God’s Word to 
himself. 

Although however such a caution as the above is very 
needful, the alternative originally proposed remains as it 
was. Supposing a man sincerely desirous of laying 
aside all prejudice, and of conforming to God’s will, is 
he to seek this end by exercising his own judgment on 
the Scriptures, or by implicitly adopting the tradition of 
his Church ? k 

If any one means by “ private judgment,” and “ private 
interpretation,” unaided judgment —unassisted study of 
Scripture,—it is plain that a man (even one possessing the 
most perfect leisure for study) who should proceed thus, 
and resolve to reject all instruction from his fellow- 
Christians, and to remain ignorant, by choice, of all that 
is recorded of the judgments of learned and pious men 
as to the meaning of the Scriptures, would not be taking 

k “ No prophecy is of private interpretation,” (lS(as e-mAvaews) is 
an expression of the Apostle Peter’s, (2 Pet. i. 20,) which has perhaps 
continued to lead some to adopt this latter course. But the sense of 
the words evidently is, “ prophecy is not self-interpreted /’ i.e. is to 
be explained not of itself but by the event. 


192 


Private Judgment . 


the best means within his reach for attaining evangelical 
truth. For in any branch of natural Science, and even 
in Mathematics, no one pursues this course. Every 
student seeks to obtain elementary instruction—oral or 
written—from those more advanced than himself, and to 
avail himself of the labours of those who have gone 
before him; though he does not ultimately acquiesce in 
any conclusion on the bare unsupported authority of his 
teachers, but, on any disputed point, resorts to expe¬ 
riment, or to demonstration (according to the nature of 
the study), in order to “ prove all things, and hold fast 
that which is right.” 

The question then will be, when fairly stated, not, 
whether men should follow the guidance of inclination 
and fancy; nor again, whether they should reject all 
human teaching, and refuse all assistance in their in¬ 
quiries after religious truth ; but, supposing a man 
willing to avail himself of all helps within his reach, and 
divest himself of prejudice, is he ultimately to decide 
according to the best of his own judgment, and embrace 
what appears to him to be the truth ? or is he to forego 
the exercise of his own judgment, and receive implicitly 
what is decided for him by the authority of the Church, 
labouring to stifle any different conviction that may 
present itself to his mind ? 

That each Church has a right to prescribe terms of 
communion for its members, is admitted. As, when two 
parties (to revert to the illustration above alluded to) 
claim each the same property, under different inter¬ 
pretations of the Law, it is necessary that a Court of 


Private Judgment. 


193 


Justice, with the aid of adjudged and recorded cases, 
should decide,—so, when essential differences of faith 
and of worship have been based on different inter¬ 
pretations of Scripture, it is necessary that Church 
formularies and Church authorities should decide between 
them; not indeed following up the decision (like those of 
a Court of Justice) by coercion; but by excluding from 
the communion of that Church any who may be irre¬ 
concilably at variance with its Creed and practice. 1 

But the question now before us is, not, whether 
a Church has a right to prescribe the terms on which 
men are to be admitted and retained as members (for 
that is acknowledged) ; but whether church-decisions 
on matters of faith are binding on the conscience , and 
supersede private judgment. 

Now it is most essential to keep in mind, that, in 
order to take a practical view of this question, we 
must consider each man as understanding by “ Church- 
authority” the declarations of his own Pastors, and of 
the authorized Confessions of Faith, &c. of the particular 
religious Community of which he is a member. For it 
would manifestly be a mere mockery to tell the great 
mass of unlearned Christians, “ you must obey the 
Church ; but it must be, not necessarily the community 
you belong to, but the true Church : you must be guided 
by the orthodox and regular Ministers of the Church ; 
but not necessarily by your own teachers, unless you 
can ascertain their apostolical succession for eighteen 
centuries: you must examine all the decisions of 
' See Essay IV. (Third Series,) § 7, p. 224. 


O 


194 


Private Judgment. 


general councils, having first settled the claims of each 
to divine authority; you must consult the works of all 
the ancient Fathers, observing what are the points 
wherein they agree, and which of these are essential 
points; and this, after having first ascertained the 
orthodoxy of each, and decided on the degree of weight 
due to his opinion: and for this purpose, you must 
ascertain also the characters and qualifications of those 
modern divines who have undertaken to select, translate, 
and comment upon, some thirty or forty of those 
voluminous writers.” To require all this, of the great 
body of plain ordinary Christians, who, by supposition, 
have not sufficient learning or ability to judge for 
themselves of the true sense of Scripture, would be an 
absurdity too gross to be seriously intended by any one. 
If we were to tell a plain unscientific man, ignorant of 
astronomy, and destitute of telescopes, that he must 
regulate his hours, not by the Town-clock , but by the 
Satellites of Jupiter, from observations and calculations 
of their eclipses, no one could be made to believe that 
we were speaking seriously. 

It is plain, therefore, that to recommend ordinary 
Christians to give up their judgment to the guidance of 
(i the Church,” is, to refer them to the guidance of the 
pastors of their own denomination. They not only will 9 
but they must , so understand the recommendation. 
They have no means of complying with it in any other way, 
unless they exercise (which, by supposition, they are 
forbidden to do) their own private judgment in deciding 
on the claims of their pastors. 


Private Judgment. 


195 


The real question before us then—when cleared of 
those extraneous ones which tend to darken and perplex 
it,—may be simply and clearly exhibited by putting a 
supposed case : suppose several persons, brought up in 
different religious communities, to have each some doubt 
in his mind as to certain tenets, which he has been 
taught: one, for instance, has been taught that adults 
only ought to be baptized, and that infant-baptism is a 
nullity; another, that all administration of Baptism, and 
of the Eucharist, is altogether superstitious: another has 
been taught that Christian ministers are sacrificing 
Priests, offering up the real body of Christ; another, that 
there ought to be no distinct order of ministers: one, again, 
has been taught that the invocation of Saints is agreeable 
to the designs of our Lord and his apostles; another, 
that the worship of Christ Himself is idolatrous: &c. 

Now suppose each of these persons to have carefully 
examined Scripture, with reference to those tenets, 
respectively; carefully and respectfully weighing the. 
arguments of his teachers: and that the result is, his being 
convinced, according to the best judgment he can form, 
that what he has been taught by them is at variance 
with Scripture. The question now is, should we advise 
this man to abide by the conclusion which, according to 
his view, is scriptural? or, to resign his own judgment to 
that of his Church,—endeavouring to stifle his own con¬ 
viction, and acquiescing in the decision his pastors have 
made for him? m 

m On this subject I have treated more fully in Essay IY. (Third 
Series), § 4, 5, 6. See also Dr. Hawkins on “ Tradition,” and on the 
“ Duty of Private-judgment.” 

O 2 


196 



Private Judgment. 

Towards those who may maintain conclusions at 
variance with our own on the above question, we are of 
course bound to abstain from reproachful censure, as 
long as they afford no grounds for presuming them other¬ 
wise than sincere. And I have no doubt that many 
have of late been led to adopt very heartily some most 
erroneous views in these matters, through the combined 
attractions of Antiquity and Novelty. Some degree of 
partiality for each of these probably exists—in very 
various proportions—in every human breast. And any 
system which offers gratification to both these feelings 
at once, is likely to be eagerly received by many; even 
though it should revive but a small portion of neglected 
truth, combined with a great mass of obsolete error. 

In some instances, however, to my own knowledge, 
and probably in many others, such notions as I allude to 
have been more or less countenanced by persons who 
are aware,—or at least were at first aware—of their 
unsoundness, from their supposed tendency to promote 
piety and morality. 

But the good effects resulting (and such often have, 
apparently at least, resulted) from any false system, have 
a continual and rapid tendency towards decay; while the 
evil fruits are borne in continually increasing profusion, 
and with more and more of poisonous luxuriance. 

And I may add, that if persons professing an almost 
unbounded reverence for ecclesiastical rulers, as such, and 
by virtue of their office, are yet found treating with all 
possible contumely any individuals of them who refuse to 
join a certain party;—and if, though exalting Church- 


197 


Scriptural Precepts. 

authority, and Unity, to the highest degree, they are 
found taking the most effectual steps to engender schism, 
by assembling in self-appointed synods, to denouncex 
their brethren as heretics,—rejecting all appeal to regular 
ecclesiastical authorities,—and appealing, instead, to an 
assembly, lawfully constituted indeed in reference to its 
own department, but possessing no more right to decide 
on a charge of heresy, than is possessed by a court- 
martial,—if such glaring inconsistencies as these are 
exhibited between men’s professed principles and their 
practice, they need not be surprised should it be doubted 
whether their professions are anything more than a mere 
pretence. 


Note D, page 167. 

On the Rules for the Application of Scripture Precepts . 

It is sometimes urged that we are not bound to obey 
Christ’s precepts strictly, because then we should be 
driven, not only to abstain from using coercive measures 
in behalf of our religion, but also to comply literally 
with the injunction “mot to resist evil,” but to turn our 
cheeks to the smiter, and surrender our goods to the 
plunderer. 

Now most Christians consider these precepts as not 
designed to have reference to those particular acts , but 
as inculcating a patient, gentle and forbearing dis¬ 
position, and tenor of conduct. If however any one 
is satisfied from an examination of the whole New Tes¬ 
tament, that a literal interpretation of these precepts is 


198 Rules for the Application of 

required by the general character of the Christian 
Revelation, he is bound, then, literally to obey them. 
But the interpretation, whichever it be, that we adopt 
and act upon, ought to be founded not on our own 
inclination ,—or our feeling more disposed to chuse the 
one interpretation than the other ; but on a general and 
fair view of the rest of the New-Testament-Scriptures. 

For instance, where we read of the civil Powers as 
“ ordained by God , for the punishment of evil-doers,” we 
may fairly conclude this to be inconsistent with unlimited 
submission to outrage and robbery. In the same manner, 
that the precept of “ sell all, and give to the poor,” 
could not have been meant as of universal and perma¬ 
nent application, is fairly inferred from the charge given 
to “ them that are rich in this world, to be ready to 
give ;” since no Christians could have been rich, if all 
had been required to divest themselves of property: and 
also from Peter’s expostulation with Ananias, whom he 
reminds that the property had been in his “ own power.” 

And so also, if any one, on a careful and candid 
examination of the Christian Scriptures, comes to the 
conclusion that to maintain the Faith by secular coercion 
is agreeable to the general character of the Gospel-revela- 
tion , then,-—and then only—he may resort to some 
interpretation different from the obvious one, of our 
Lord’s precepts. But unless we do make this appear, 
we are not at liberty so to explain his words. We are 
not allowed to interpret every precept of Scripture in 
the way we like best, so as to bring it into a conformity 
with our own notions, merely on the ground that some 


Scriptural Precepts. 


199 


passages of Scripture are not to be understood in the 
strict literal sense. To make this a plea for affixing to 
any passage whatever any sense that may happen to 
suit our purpose, would be, not to take Scripture for 
our guide, but to make ourselves the guides of 
Scripture. 

If any one who has been brought to believe that the 
whole Bible,—every part of it alike—is to be applied, 
directly and literally, to ourselves in our ordinary 
conduct, sets himself honestly to endeavour after a 
conformity to the whole of the Old and of the New 
Dispensation at once, he will be proceeding fairly and 
consistently : and he will be rewarded probably, in being 
disabused of his error, from finding (unless very deficient 
in common intelligence) the utter impossibility of carry¬ 
ing out the principle in practice. But there are some, 
who, instead of this, allow themselves the liberty of 
selecting for themselves, according to their own fancy 
or convenience, which parts of the Old Testament they 
will conform to, and which disregard,—which parts of 
the New Testament they will understand as literally, 
universally, and permanently binding, and which, as 
figurative, local, temporary, &c. : and then they deceive 
themselves into the notion that they have the sanction 
of God’s Word for the system they have thus compiled 
for themselves out of it, by the standard of their own 
inclinations. 

As to the question immediately before us, it is probable 
that the chief source of perplexity and misapprehension 
to many minds, is, their confusing together the exercise 


200 


Scriptural Precepts. 


of secular power by a person who actually is a Christian 
of a certain persuasion, and, his exercising that power 
as a Christian, or as a member of that particular Church, 
—hy mrtue of his being such. “ Is it not allowable,” 
one may hear it asked, “ for a Christian, and a member 
of our Church, to be a magistrate ? and is not the 
magistrate ordained for the punishment of evil-doers ?” 
Of course both questions must be answered in the 
affirmative. Our Lord did not mean that civil rulers, 
exercising that coercive power without which secular 
society cannot subsist, should not be his disciples; but 
that they should not claim and exercise that power as his 
disciples,— hy mrtue of their Christian profession,—or 
employ that secular power in constraining men to acknow¬ 
ledge Him. This would be to make his “ kingdom one 
of this world:” but not so, the mere circumstance of 
secular power being exercised by one who is actually a 
Christian. 

In the many analogous cases which are of daily 
occurrence, men’s common sense generally keeps them 
clear of such confusion of ideas. There are, e. g. many 
literary and scientific Associations, which no one would 
speak of as having or claiming any political power; 
because though many of their members may chance to 
be legislators, judges or magistrates, and may accordingly 
have to enact laws and enforce them by penalties, they do 
not exercise this power as members of a scientific Asso¬ 
ciation, or in furtherance of their own scientific views. 


n See Essay I. on the “ Kingdom of Christ,” § 12. 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


201 


Note E, page 167. 

On the supposed Duty of using Coercion in Matters of 
Faith. 

The system, it should be observed, of excluding 
from the rank of Citizens and reducing to a state of 
Helotage, all who do not profess the religion prescribed 
by the Civil Power, falls far short of the proper con¬ 
clusion which really follows from the principle on which 
that system is made to rest. For if it does come within 
the province of the Magistrate to provide for the spiri¬ 
tual welfare of the people by protecting them from reli¬ 
gious error, as well as to protect their persons and property 
from outrage and fraud, he is bound to discharge this his 
duty thoroughly , by the use of the secular force which is 
his proper instrument. He beareth not the sword in vain: 
“ he is ordained for the punishment of evil-doers and 
if religious faults come within the description of that 
“ evil doing ” of which he is to take cognizance, he 
has no more right to tolerate heretics, than to tolerate 
robbers or assassins. 

And here it may be proper to offer a few remarks 
on a question naturally arising out of the principle 
I am speaking of, and which its advocates are fre¬ 
quently, and I think fairly, called on to answer. If 
you declare it the duty,—it is urged—of a Sovereign 
or other Magistrate or Legislator to enforce the re- 
seption of a true religion, and to put down forcibly all 
false ones, are you not recommending a Chinese or a 


202 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


Mahometan sovereign forcibly to suppress Christianity, 
—an Austrian, or Spanish,—Protestantism ; and so, of 
the rest ? 0 

To this question, though some answer in the affir¬ 
mative and others in the negative, the difference between 
those thus seemingly opposed, is sometimes (as I shall 
proceed to shew) more apparent than real. 

Some admit that it is the duty of a Sovereign who 
is a sincere Mahometan, or of whatever other per¬ 
suasion, to use the same means for the support and 
propagation of his own Faith, and for the suppression 
of what he thinks false religion, that we, as conscientious 
members of our own Church, employ in support of our 
religion, and in opposition to any other.P Some again 
strenuously deny this position ; which,—as they take 
for granted (though its advocates do not say so)—must 

° It is to be observed that I do not design here to treat of the 
questions concerning a Church-establishment, generally;—questions 
involved in much additional perplexity by men’s neglecting to begin 
by stating the sense in which they use the term “ establishment.’* 
Not less than three or four very different meanings are commonly 
attached to it, involving at least as many different questions; each of 
which ought to be separately discussed. 

On the subject of Endowments, I have offered some observations 
elsewhere ; especially in Essay Y. (Third Series,) § 10, p. 304. 

p Of these persons some are advocates for coercion, while others speak 
merely of the duty of a man’s recommending, encouraging, protecting, 
and endowing, what he regards as true religion, and protesting and 
arguing against what he holds to be false. But this difference, though 
most important in itself, may be waived, in reference to the immediate 
question; which is, simply whether it be a duty to every man to act 
upon his own conviction in that way in which we think it a duty to 
act upon ours. 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


203 


be founded on the assumption “ that there are a mul¬ 
titude of religions in the world of nearly equal value 
and authority.” q “ Keeping close then to the principle 
that there is but one true religion in the world, they 
deny altogether the inference that if it be the duty of 
the king of England to propagate the Protestant faith, 
it must equally be the duty of the emperor of Austria 
to propagate popery. The duty of every man, Papist 
or Protestant, is the same. God has vouchsafed to 
give unto each a revelation of his mind and will; and 
it is the duty of the sovereigns of England, and 
Austria alike, first to receive the truths of God’s Word 
themselves, and then to spread those truths to the 
utmost of their powers to those around them.” “ The 
simple fact,” they add, “ is this, that there is but one 
true religion ; and there never has been, nor ever will 
be, any other. All the rest are false, ruinous, and 

q Thus, Warburton has been censured as laying down that the 
truth or falsity of a religion is a question of little or no consequence; 
on the ground that he speaks of it as one which must be waived in 
any discussion of the propriety, generally, of establishing one religion 
in each country, inasmuch as the Legislature of each must be expected 
to regard its own religion as the true. 

But universally, a man must expect to be, by many, set down at once 
as a “ latitudinarianif he attempts to bring into practice the rule 
(which so many seem not only to disregard in practice, but not even 
to understand) of doing as we would be done by. Most men are 
admirers of justice when justice happens to be on their side; but if 
it be proposed to allow to another the same liberties and rights that 
they claim for themselves, when his judgment differs from theirs, this 
will often be understood to mean that every one’s judgment is equally 
correct; or that whether correct or erroneous is a matter of no 
moment. 


204 Coercion in Matters of Faith. 

opposed to the honour of God. This cannot be too 
often or too strongly stated, or too constantly kept in 
view. The inferences are obvious. The Christian, 
who goes into a Pagan country, and there attacks the 
existing religion, exposes the character of the false 
gods, and instigates the people to throw off their yoke 
—acts laudably and well. The unbeliever, on the other 
hand, who goes forth among our Christian population, 
assaults their faith, speaks evil of the Son of God, and 
aims to overthrow his worship,—acts wickedly, and 
against the law of God. The magistrate who restrains 
and coerces, or punishes the first of these characters, 
opposes himself to God, and is a persecutor. The 
magistrate who restrains, coerces, or punishes the 
second, obeys the command of God, and is not a 
persecutor.” 

Now those who hold such language as this appear not 
to have a very distinct perception of the force of their 
own expressions, or of the conclusions to which their 
principles lead. I will take leave therefore to observe, 

1. That one or two individuals are not authorized to 
make such an arbitrary innovation in language, as to 
insist that a term in such common use as “ persecution” 
shall no longer be used in its commonly-received sense. 
Let any one maintain what opinions he thinks fit respect¬ 
ing the thing denoted by a certain word, even though he 
should stand alone in his opinion : but the meaning of 
a word must be what men understand by it; because the 
common usage of the language is that which constitutes 
the signification of each word. 


Coercion in Matters of Faith . 


205 


Now the great mass of those who speak the English 
tongue, understand, I conceive, by religious “perse¬ 
cution,” violence exercised or threatened against any 
religion, whether agreeing or disagreeing with their 
own : and would accordingly, though themselves mem¬ 
bers, suppose, of the Established Church, consider as a 
“ persecutor” any Sovereign who should fine, imprison, 
and banish, the sect of the Quakers for instance, or the 
Anabaptists. 

It may be said that a mere verbal question (such as 
this is) hardly deserves notice. And it may be admitted 
that if any one chuses, avowedly , and with fair warning, 
to employ some term in a sense different from the 
received one, his assuming this liberty need not be dis¬ 
puted. But it will often be found that arbitrary unac¬ 
knowledged innovations in language lead to confusion of 
thought in the writer and perplexity to the reader/ 

2. I would observe, that those who take upon them 
thus to limit the term “persecutor” to one who perse¬ 
cutes the teachers of a true religion, do not seem to 
perceive that in reality they attach no blame to perse¬ 
cution, (even in their own restricted sense of the word) 
but only to religious error* 

“ The duty,” they say, “ of every man, Papist or 
Protestant, is the same ; first to receive the truths of 
God’s Word, and then to spread those truths to the 

r “ Credunt homines ration em suam verbis imperare: sed fit etiam 
ut verba vim suam super intellectum retorqueant et reflectant.”— 
Bacon. Nov. Org. Aph. 59. 

8 See Essay V. (Third Series,) § 3, p. 257. 


206 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


utmost of their power, to those around them.” The per¬ 
secutor therefore is doing, it seems, only what would be 
quite right if he had “ received the truths of God’s 
Word” instead of adhering to an erroneous creed. The 
only fault he is charged with is one common to him with 
those who, holding the same erroneous creed, practise 
no persecution. He does more mischief perhaps than 
they; but th e fault ,—the only thing blamed—on this 
principle, being the very same in the persecutor and the 
non-persecutor, it is evident that persecution itself is not 
blamed at all. It is not a correct and accurate use of 
language to say that we blame a sovereign for killing or 
banishing one half of his subjects, if our meaning be 
in reality, that we blame him only for not deciding 
rightly which half it shall be. 

3. Hence it follows that the maintainers of these 
doctrines, agree, in substance, though without perceiving 
it, with many of those whom, in words, they are opposed 
to ; and who differ from them only in greater precision of 
language, and in analyzing the complex act which the 
others contemplate in the mass. In saying that it is 
right for every man—including a sincere Mahometan— 
to enforce by coercion what he considers as the true 
Faith, they do not imply that the Mahometan is right; 
they would admit that he is wrong, in his faith; but 
that his fault lies in his erroneous conviction, not in his 
mode of acting on his conviction. Now in this they com¬ 
pletely agree with their professed opponents. 

If one were to say that all jurymen are bound in duty 
to give a verdict according to their conviction, some 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


207 


might adduce a like objection ; saying, What, do you 
commend a jury for giving a wrong verdict, from having 
come to a wrong conclusion respecting the case ? No, 
it would be replied, we do not commend them ; but we 
censure them for having failed, through negligence or 
dulness, to arrive at a right conviction; not, for giving 
their verdict agreeably to their conviction. 

4. This also should not be overlooked: that all dis- 
suasives from persecution must be, on the above prin¬ 
ciple, utterly vain and useless ; since, if it is to be 
defined as consisting in the resort to coercion on behalf 
of error, every one will be sure to apply the term to his 
neighbour’s conduct, and not to his own. 

If a Christian Missionary therefore who holds this 
principle, honestly avows it to a Mahometan or Pagan 
Prince, saying, “ It is your duty to suppress by the 
sword all religions except the true one; and mine is the 
true the former of these propositions is so much more 
acceptable to human nature than the other, and so much 
more likely to be the first admitted, that the reply 
could hardly fail to be, “ I agree with you : except that 
I hold mine to be the true religion and the probable 
result would be immediate sentence of death or banish¬ 
ment to the missionary and all his followers. It is no 
better than a mockery to say that it is the duty of 
pagans or other misbelievers first to embrace the truth, 
if we thus provide that those who might teach them 
the truth shall be silenced before they are able—and on 
'purpose that they may not be able—to obtain a hearing. 

Now to maintain a principle which obviously tends in 


208 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


practice to expose Christian missionaries to persecution, 
—in fact to spread persecution throughout the world, 
and to perpetuate error wherever it exists,—is a thing 
which at least ought not to be done lightly and incon¬ 
siderately. It may be said indeed that this result ought 
not to follow; for that all men ought to embrace the 
true Faith. And, doubtless, were all men to do so,— 
nay, were all to agree in any one religion,—there would 
be no religious persecution. But we are here speaking 
of what is to be rationally expected , as the actual result. 
Unless the one Faith be previously embraced, before the 
duty of exercising coercion is admitted,—unless the 
inculcators of that duty will consent (which we cannot 
reasonably expect) to hold in abeyance and conceal their 
principle till their faith shall have become universally 
predominant—the result must be that persecution—of 
Christians as well as of others—will take place, unde¬ 
niably as the consequence,—wdiolly or partly,—of our 
own act. We are scattering through the world a “ bane 
and antidote ” with a full knowledge that most men will 
swallow the bane and reject the antidote. 

It may perhaps be replied, that the first Christian 
preachers (and, in some degree, this holds good with 
their successors) did, knowingly, bring persecution on 
themselves, by preaching a Gospel unacceptable both to 
Jews and to Gentiles. But they did this, because they 
had received a distinct revelation of certain truths; 
together with an express command to declare those 
truths “ to every creature,” and to “ make disciples of 
all nations.” And if we find an express injunction in 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 209 

the New Testament (hut not otherwise) to inculcate and 
practise as a duty the employment of secular force in the 
cause of our religion, we must, I admit, comply with 
that injunction, and abide the consequences. But when 
we search the New-Testament Scriptures for such in¬ 
junction, we find the direct contrary, in almost every 
page. And if therefore Christian professors resolve thus 
to “ tempt the Lord ” by “ teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men,” and claiming the divine sanction 
for conduct which the Scriptures not only do not enjoin, 
but forbid, they are not God’s martyrs, should the 
result be that “ they who draw the sword, perish by the 
sword.” 

That persecution however, and all persecuting doc¬ 
trines are practically hurtful to the cause of truth, 
hardly any one will ever be convinced, except by bitter 
experience, (and often, not even by that) who has not 
first been convinced by the precepts and examples of 
Christ and his Apostles, how inconsistent such doc¬ 
trines are with a ‘‘kingdom not of this world.” 

5. I will only observe, in conclusion, that on comparing 
together a Mahometan and a Christian, each employing 
coercion in behalf of his own Faith, the latter appears 
much the more censurable. His procedure is far less 
consistent with the spirit of the Gospel than of the 
Koran ; whose author charged his disciples to propagate 
his creed by the sword. 

Indeed it has often struck me that the rise and 
spread of the Mahometan religion, was calculated, and 
probably designed, as an admonition, and severe rebuke 


P 


210 


Coercion in Matters of Faith. 


to Christians; who had introduced into their religion, 
contrary to its true character, and had acted on, the 
persecuting principles which Mahomet embodied in his. 
Many Christians, it may be hoped, received rightly, 
and profited by, this rebuke; others probably, among 
the multitudes of them who embraced Islamism, did so 
the more easily from being already imbued with the 
spirit of it:—from preferring the Koran, which openly 
encouraged and recommended the principles they had 
been accustomed to act on, to the Gospel, which was 
glaringly at variance with them. If they resolved to 
adhere to these principles, they were gainers in point of 
consistency by becoming Mahometans. 

But moreover, the employment of coercion is not only 
far less consistent with the spirit of Christ’s religion 
than of Mahomet’s, but also far more adverse to the pro¬ 
pagation and maintenance of Gospel-truth, than of any 
other religion. For, (besides the proofs of this which I 
have offered elsewhere) it should be remembered that 
as the Christian Faith is distinguished from others by 
resting on evidence f so, this foundation is practically 
weakened by every kind and degree of external compul¬ 
sion and restraint. Those who would fain “ make 
assurance double sure” by superadding secular force to 
the force of argument, lose the advantage of this latter, 
in proportion as they call in “ the arm of flesh” as an 
ally. For, it is manifest that force may be employed as 
well for falsehood as for truth. To those on the wrong 
side, or on the right, it is equally easy—and for those 
on the wrong, more natural and appropriate,—forcibly 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 


211 


to stop the mouth of one who contradicts them, or 
(which comes to the same) to “ stop their ears, and cast 
him out of the city, and stone him.” 4 It is peculiar to 
truth when based on evidence, to call for a jfair hear¬ 
ing of the evidence. But it calls for no less than a fair 
hearing. Truth is under a veil, and its proper aspect 
disguised, when supported by means which might equally 
support falsehood;—when its outward reception is forced 
on those who maybe inwardly unconvinced;—and when 
consequently the conviction of any one who really is 
convinced, never can be known by others to be sincere. 
The soundest arguments lose most of their practical 
weight, when it is known that men are restrained by 
penalties from attempting to answer them. And thus 
Christianity is deprived of its great and characteristic 
support, through the want of faith manifested by its 
advocates. 


Note F. page 172. 

On Monopoly of Civil Rights by the Professors of the 
true Faith. 

I have elsewhere offered remarks—the substance of 
which, I take the liberty of subjoining to this Essay—on 
some doctrines, at variance with what I have been now in¬ 
culcating, and which, though not substantially novel, have 
been lately set forth with an originality of manner, and 
in a tone that entitles them to respectful consideration. 
t Acts vii. 57. 


212 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

The exclusion from the rights of citizenship of all 
except a certain favoured class,—which was the system 
of the Grecian and other ancient Republics—has been 
vindicated by their example, and recommended for 
general adoption, by some writers; who have proposed 
to make sameness of Religion correspond, in modern 
States, to the sameness of Race , among the ancients;— 
to substitute for their hereditary citizenship the pro¬ 
fession of Christianity in one and the same National 
Church . 

But attentive and candid reflection will shew that this 
would be the worst possible imitation , of one of the 
worst of the Pagan institutions ; that it would be not 
only still more unwise than the unwise example pro¬ 
posed, but also even more opposite to the spirit of the 
Christian Religion , than to the maxims of sound policy. 

Of the system itself, under various modifications, and 
of its effects, under a variety of circumstances, we find 
abundant records throughout a large portion of history, 
ancient and modern ; from that of the Israelites when 
sojourners in Egypt, down to that of the Turkish 
Empire and its Greek and other Christian subjects. 
And in those celebrated ancient Republics of which we 
have such copious accounts in the classic writers, it is 
well known, that a man’s being born of free parents 
within the territory of a certain State, had nothing to 
do with conferring civil rights; while his contributing 
towards the expenses of its government, was rather 
considered as the badge of an alien (Matt. xvii. 25); the 
imposing of a tax on the citizens being mentioned 


213 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

by Cicero 11 as something calamitous and disgraceful, 
and not to be thought of but in some extraordinary 
emergency. 

Nor were the proportionate numbers at all taken into 
account. In Attica the Metoeci or sojourners appear 
to have constituted about a third of the free population; 
but the Helots in Lacedaemon, and the subjects of the 
Carthaginian and Roman republics, outnumbered the 
citizens, in the proportion probably of five, and some¬ 
times of ten or of twenty to one. Nor again were 
alien-families considered as such in reference to a more 
recent settlement in the territory; on the contrary, they 
were often the ancient occupiers of the soil, who had 
been subdued by another Race ; as the Siculi (from 
whom Sicily derived its name), by the Siceliots or 
Greek colonists. 

The system in question has been explained and 
justified on the ground that distinctions of Race implied 
important religious and moral differences; such, that 
the admixture of men thus differing in the main points 
of human life, would have tended, unless one Race 
had a complete ascendancy, to confuse all notions of 
right and wrong. And the principle, accordingly, of 
the ancient republics,—which has been thence com¬ 
mended as wise and good—has been represented as that 
of making agreement in religion and morals the test of 
citizenship. 

That this however was not—at least in many in¬ 
stances—even the professed principle, is undeniable. 


De Off. b. ii. ch. xxi. 


214 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 

The Lacedaemonians reduced to Helotism the Messeni- 
ans, who were of Doric Race like themselves; while it 
appears from the best authorities, that the kings of 
those very Lacedaemonians were of a different race from 
the People, being not of Dorian but of Achaian extrac¬ 
tion. There could not have been therefore, at least 
universally, any such total incompatibility between the 
moral institutions and principles of the different Races. 
The vindication therefore of the system utterly fails, 
even on the very grounds assumed by its advocates. 

If however in any instances such an incompatibility 
did exist, or (what is far more probable) such a mutual 
jealousy and dislike originating in a narrow spirit of 
clanship—as to render apparently hopeless the complete 
amalgamation of two tribes as fellow-citizens on equal 
terms, the wisest,—the only wise—course w r ould have 
been, an entire separation. Whether the one tribe 
migrated in a mass to settle elsewhere, or the territory 
were divided between the two, so as to form distinct 
independent States,—in either mode, it would have 
been better for both parties, than that one should 
remain tributary subjects of the other. Even the ex¬ 
pulsion of the Moors and Jews from Spain, was not, I 
am convinced, so great an evil, as it would have been 
to retain them as a degraded and tributary class, like 
the Greek subjects of the Turkish empire. 

For, if there be any one truth which the deductions 
of reason alone, independent of history, would lead us 
to anticipate, and which again, history alone would 
establish, independently of antecedent reasoning, it is 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 215 

this: that a whole class of men placed permanently 
under the ascendancy of another, as subjects, without the 
rights of citizens, must be a source, at the best, of weak¬ 
ness, and generally of danger, to the State. They cannot 
well be expected, and have rarely been found, to evince 
much hearty patriotic feeling towards a community in 
which their neighbours look down on them as*'an infe¬ 
rior and permanently degraded species. While kept in 
brutish ignorance, poverty, and weakness, they are 
likely to feel—like the ass in the fable—indifferent whose 
panniers they bear. If they increase in power, wealth, 
and mental development, they are likely to be ever on 
the watch for an opportunity of shaking off a degrading 
yoke. Even a complete general despotism, weighing 
down all classes without exception, is, in general, far 
more readily borne, than invidious distinctions drawn 
between a favoured and a depressed race of subjects ; 
for men feel an insult more than a mischief done to 
them; x and feel no insult so much as one daily and 
hourly inflicted by their immediate neighbours. A Per¬ 
sian subject of the great King had probably no greater 
share of civil rights than a Helot; but he was likely to 
be less galled by his depression, from being surrounded 
by those who, though some of them possessed power 
and dignity as compared with himself, yet were equally 
destitute of civil rights, and abject slaves in common 
with him, of the one great despot. 

It is notorious accordingly how much Sparta was 

x 'AhiKovfxzvoi, o>s cotKev, oi avBpumoi fxaAAov opylfrovroA, fj fiiu£6fxcvot. 

—Thucyd. b. i. § 77. 


216 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 

weakened and endangered by the Helots, always ready 
to avail themselves of any public disaster as an occasion 
for revolt. The frightful expedient was resorted to of 
thinning their numbers from time to time by an organ¬ 
ized system of massacre ; yet, though great part of the 
territory held by Lacedaemon was left a desert, y security 
could not be purchased even at this price. 

We find Hannibal, again, maintaining himself for 
sixteen years in Italy against the Romans ; and though 
scantily supplied from Carthage, recruiting his ranks, 
and maintaining his positions, by the aid of Roman 
subjects. Indeed, almost every page of history teaches 
the same lesson, and proclaims in every different form, 
“ How long shall these men be a snare unto us ? Let the 
people go, that they may serve their God; knowest thou 
not yet that Egypt is destroyed V* “ The remnant of 
these nations which thou shalt not drive out, shall be 
pricks in thine eyes, and thorns in thy side.” 

But besides the other causes which have always ope¬ 
rated to perpetuate, in spite of experience, so impolitic 
a system, the difficulty of changing it when once esta¬ 
blished, is one of the greatest. The false step is one 
which it is peculiarly difficult to retrace. Men long 
debarred from civil rights, almost always become ill 
fitted to enjoy them. The brutalizing effects of oppres¬ 
sion, which cannot immediately be done away by its 
removal, at once furnish a pretext for justifying it, and 
make relief hazardous. Kind and liberal treatment, if 
very cautiously and judiciously bestowed, will gradually 
y Thucyd. b. iv. 


217 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 

and slowly advance men towards the condition of being 
worthy of such treatment: but treat men as aliens or 
enemies,—as slaves, as children, or as brutes, and they 
will speedily and completely justify your conduct. 

The Yaudois, indeed, oppressed as they have long 
been by their government, afford, if we may rely on 
statements which seem well worthy of credit, a remark¬ 
able exception to this rule. If the accounts we have be 
correct, of their near approach, both in the purity of their 
religion, and in their character, to the primitive Chris¬ 
tians, we may infer that in both instances the same 
religion has operated to produce—as it was designed to 
do—the same effects on the character. 2 

But I have said not only that the policy of these 
ancient States was unwise, but that for Christians to 
make fellow-membership of the same Church, the foun¬ 
dation of that agreement in religion and morals which is 
to be the test of citizenship, is the worst possible imita¬ 
tion of a bad example. That anomalous system which 
some regard as Christianity, but which is in reality an 
incongruous mixture of Judaism, Christianity, and Pa¬ 
ganism, is open to some peculiar objections which do not 
equally lie against the several systems, taken singly, of 
which it is compounded. 

The system of the ancient States, bad as it was, was 
exempt from one great evil,—that of holding out a 

z See Dr. Gilly’s accounts of this interesting people; and also the 
extraordinary history of their glorious return, by Arnaud, translated, 
and illustrated with original plates, by H. Acland. 


218 Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

bounty on hypocritical apostasy. When one Race, 
whether distinguished by the colour of their skin,— 
their hereditary religious rites,—or otherwise—is ex¬ 
cluded, permanently, generation after generation, from 
civil rights, pernicious and dangerous as such a system 
is, it is still far preferable to that of making the ad¬ 
herence to a national Church—a Church open to all 
who chuse to profess adherence to it—the test of 
citizenship. For, under this system, whoever is in his 
heart indifferent about all religion, unscrupulous in point 
of veracity, and also dead to all sense of disgrace, will 
not fail to make an outward profession of the national 
religion, when allured by the prospect of advantage. 

Hypocrisy however, I have heard it urged, can never, 
do all we can, be rooted out of the world. This is 
true ; and the same may be said of many other evils ; 
but we do not on that account court them as goods, 
and study to increase their amount. Unavoidable evils, 
or those which can only be avoided by incurring greater, 
we submit to as far as they are unavoidable, and because 
they are so. For instance, no vigilance can completely 
secure us against false professions of friendship, made 
from mercenary motives; but there are few persons 
who would take measures to increase the number of 
insincere and pretended friends. And yet, in that case, 
there is some counterbalancing advantage : real services 
may be done, from mercenary motives, by those whose 
affection is a mere pretence. And it is the same with 
insincere pretensions to moral virtue : one who abstains 
from bad actions, not through any virtuous principle, 


219 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

but merely for the sake of worldly advantage, is a 
better member of society, though not a better man, 
than a bare-faced profligate ; and he who relieves the 
poor, not out of charity but ostentation, benefits them 
at least, though not himself. But religious hypocrisy 
is an unmixed evil, and has no countervailing advantage ; 
since an insincere profession of faith benefits no one, 
and only tends to cast a suspicion, when detected, on 
the sincerity of others. 

But many, it may be said,—and no doubt with 
truth,— have, under such a system, embraced our 
religion with perfect sincerity, uninfluenced by any 
secular motives. These persons then, by the very 
supposition, (and probably many others also who were 
prerented from becoming converts through a dread of 
the imputation of unworthy motives) would have joined 
our Church under a system of perfect religious freedom . 
The opposite system therefore has no effect on those of 
a disinterested character, except to present an additional 
obstacle to their conversion, and to visit it with an 
additional penalty; a penalty the most galling to a 
generous mind. When a man has the prejudices of 
education to encounter, and probably the esteem and 
affection of his dearest friends to forego, he has surely 
enough difficulties in the way of an unbiassed judg¬ 
ment, and a resolution to act upon it, without our 
gratuitously superadding a still greater hindrance,— 
the impossibility of clearing his character from the 
suspicion, however undeserved, of being a hypocritical 
and mercenary apostate. 


220 


Monopoly of Civil Big /its. 

The holding out of secular inducements then, in the 
shape of admission to civil privileges, while it never 
can produce conformity, except in men of the basest 
character, may have the effect of preventing it, in 
many of those of an opposite character. When 
therefore we divide the subjects of any State into a 
privileged and a degraded caste, we are guilty of a 
grievous error; but when, in addition to this, we make 
a provision for recruiting continually the ranks of the 
dominant class from the scum and refuse of the de¬ 
pressed class, and at the same time for excluding as far 
as possible the more high-minded of that depressed 
class, we have carried to the utmost the perverse 
ingenuity of absurd legislation. 

It will be observed that in the present argument I 
have all along spoken of the proposed bond and test of 
citizenship as consisting in “ conformity to one and 
the same National Church using this phrase, as being 
more precise, in preference to that of “ profession of 
Christianity,” which evidently must be meant to convey, 
in the theory alluded to, the very same sense. For it 
is plain that this is the only sense in which the “ pro¬ 
fession of Christianity ” could tend to secure the very 
object proposed, of establishing that “ agreement in 
religion and morals ” which is to he made the test of 
citizenship. Nothing, it is evident, would be gained as 
to this point, by merely establishing the requisition that 
all the citizens should bear the mere title of Christians, 
while they were left to he Christians of distinct Churches, 
totally independent of the State and of each other. 


221 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

The thing proposed therefore manifestly is, that some 
National Church should be established, so comprehen¬ 
sive as to comprise as nearly as possible all Christians ; 
and that all who refused to join this Church, whether 
Christians, Jews, or of any other denomination, should 
he excluded from civil privileges. 

This is important to be observed; because though I 
should gladly see the terms of communion of every 
church placed on the most comprehensive footing that 
is compatible with the essential objects of a Church, there 
are some differences among Christians (even supposing all 
difficulties relative to points of faith, to be got over) which 
I think must, even in the views of the most sanguine, 
preclude them from ever being members of the same 
religious community. Those, for instance, who maintain 
the absolute unlawfulness of endowments, could not, in 
any way that I can conceive, become members of a church 
possessing endowments. a No one should therefore be 
so far misled by specious language as to calculate on 
none but Jews and Infidels being, under the proposed 
system, excluded from civil rights. 

a It might be urged, that those who object to endowments may- 
claim from the others a concession of the point; inasmuch as they 
plead a scruple of conscience against listening to what they call a 
hired ministry; (meaning in reality, imhired, i. e. supported by 
endowments, instead of wages from their congregations,) while the 
others, though regarding endowments as more desirable, cannot have 
a conscientious scruple against listening to an unendowed minister. 
But those who feel as strongly as I do the dangerous and cor¬ 
rupting tendency of what is called the “ Voluntary System,” do enter¬ 
tain a conscientious scruple against adopting it by choice , when there 
is an alternative. 


222 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

But there is another circumstance also which must 
not be left out of the calculation ; viz. that many Chris¬ 
tians who might be willing to conform to a Church 
constituted on certain principles, provided it were left 
to their free choice , would utterly refuse conformity if 
enforced under the penalty of political degradation• 
“ It matters nothing,” says Dean Swift, very truly, 
(( how wide you make the door, for those who take a 
(i pride and a pleasure in not coming in.” Now the very 
recipe for producing, in many minds, this pride and 
pleasure, is, to make conformity a test for admissibility 
to civil rights. And though such a disposition is faulty, 
we are surely not thereby justified in holding out a 
temptation to commit the fault, and then visiting it un¬ 
mercifully. At any rate we must calculate on meeting 
with it. Many would be found stickling for even 
minute points, (which, under a system of perfect free¬ 
dom, they would have readily conceded,) lest they 
should be suspected of yielding from unworthy motives, 
and purchasing, by concessions against their conscience, 
the rights that were unjustly withheld. So that even 
among those brought up as Christians, the system 
would have the effect of alluring into conformity the 
worldly, the unscrupulous, and the shameless ; while 
on men of the opposite character it would have the 
opposite effect. Now this, as I have before observed, 
may be reckoned the very perfection of bad legislation. 

Yet unwise and unsafe in a legislative point of view 
as such a system has been shown to be, I regard its 


223 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

political inexpediency as a trifle, in comparison of its 
contrariety to the whole spirit of the Gospel, and the 
false and injurious impression it tends to create of the 
character of our religion. 

As far as the religious duty of a Christian is con¬ 
cerned, the whole question as to the treatment of 
persons of a different persuasion, seems to have been 
long ago decided, by our Lord’s answer to those who 
alleged their scruples respecting the submission of men 
professing the true religion, to the civil government of 
a heathen prince. “ Is it lawful,” they inquired, “ to 
give tribute to Caesar ?” Our Lord’s answer, “ Render 
to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the 
things that are God’s,” lays down a principle which 
must surely be as applicable to the case of fellow-subjects , 
as of rulers . Caesar’s being an idolator, did not, it 
seems, impair his right, as a civil governor, to the 
obedience and the tribute due to him as civil governor, 
so long as his commands did not interfere with the 
service due to God. Neither therefore can the reli¬ 
gious errors of our fellow-citizens impair their rights as 
citizens, so long as the exercise of these does not 
prevent us from serving God after the dictates of our 
own conscience. For, a prince can have but the same 
claim to the rights of a prince, that a subject has to 
those of a subject. The plea of self-defence , indeed, 
may justify our withholding either the one or the other; 
as in the case of King James II. and his descendants; 
whose sovereignty seemed incompatible with the rights 
of their subjects: but no other plea can justify our 


224 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

withholding either. It might indeed be more unsafe, 
but would hardly have been more unjust, for the Jews 
of old to refuse tribute to a heathen emperor, than 
for us to refuse, on religious grounds, civil rights to our 
fellow-subjects, when no case of danger to ourselves 
from the concession, can be made out. 

For if—when Jesus at his examination before the 
Roman governor, declared his “ kingdom to be not of 
this world,”—He is to be considered as having designed 
a reservation to his disciples of a power to establish, 
whenever they should be strong enough, the political 
ascendancy of his religion, reducing all who would not 
embrace it to the condition of vassals under tribute, 
without the rights of citizens,—let any one reflect, who 
attributes to Him this meaning, what a disingenuous 
subterfuge they are imputing to Him. He meant, I 
have heard it said, not to claim for Christians, as 
Christians, any peculiar political power beyond what 
was claimed and exercised by every tribe, race, or clan 
of men, in any Country in which they could possess 
themselves of sufficient influence. Now every Tribe 
having been accustomed (as has been above remarked) 
to establish, wherever they were able, a monopoly of 
political rights for themselves, keeping all other in¬ 
habitants of the same territory in a state of tributary 
subjection, this was doubtless the very thing appre¬ 
hended by those who persecuted the early Christians 
as disaffected persons. They probably understood the 
renunciation by Jesus of temporal sovereignty, exactly 
according to the above interpretation; and what is 


Monopoly of Civil Rights . 


225 


more, it would be bard to prove that they were not 
justified in their conduct, supposing that interpretation 
to be a true one. For to what would the disavowal, 
on the part of Christians, of political designs, have 
amounted, on that supposition ? Merely, that they 
were content to forego all such claims till they should 
be strong enough to enforce them: but that whenever, 
and wherever, they might amount either to a majority, 
or a sufficiently powerful minority to exercise dominion 
(as the Lacedaemonians over the Helots, or the Romans 
over the Provincials,) they would subjugate, in like 
manner, all who did not belong to their own Body, 
and exclude them from the rights of citizens. 

These men, it might have been urged, and probably 
was urged,—by their opponents, profess their readiness 
to “ pay tribute to Caesar,” and to honour kings and all 
who are in authority: but w r hen they acquire sufficient 
power, they will doubtless enact that none but those 
who belong to their own Body shall be in authority: 
Caesar, and every other sovereign and magistrate, they 
will pronounce disqualified, except on condition of 
embracing their faith, not only for his office, but for 
all the rights of a citizen: they ~eally are aiming at 
the subversion of the existing governments ; and only 
w’aive their pretensions to political domination till they 
shall have become strong enough to assert them : we 
must endeavour therefore, in self-defence, to put down 
this rising sect. 

Such, I have little doubt, were the suspicions en¬ 
tertained (and, if the foregoing interpretation be 
Q 


226 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 


correct, justly entertained) by the early adversaries of 
Christianity. And how did the Apostles and early 
Apologists meet these suspicions ? By earnestly dis¬ 
avowing all designs of political interference, and on 
that ground claiming exemption from the censure of 
the civil magistracy, as not proper objects of political 
jealousy, since they did not aim at political ascendancy. 
I need not cite the numerous and well-known passages 
to this effect which occur in the Acts, and in many of 
the Epistles. But they did aim at political ascendancy, 
if, while seeking by conversions to increase their num¬ 
bers, they secretly designed to monopolize, as soon as 
they should be strong enough, the rights of citizenship, 
and to hold in subjection as vassals all who did not 
belong to their Body. 

The conclusion therefore seems inevitable, unless we 
attribute insincerity to the early Christians, and to their 
Master, that his declarations cannot bear the inter¬ 
pretation I have alluded to; and that we must un¬ 
derstand his description of his kingdom as not of 
this world, in the plain simple sense, as debarring all 
Christians from any claim to monopolize political power 
to themselves, either as Christians or as members of 
any particular church;—from making subscription to 
their creed a test of citizenship. If He and his 
Apostles did not mean to forbid this, in what terms 
could they have forbidden it? 

Of course it was to be expected, that as Christianity 
succeeded in improving the tone of morals, many 
abominations—such as gladiatorial shows, and impure 


Monopoly of Civil Hiy/its. 227 

rites—which were tolerated, or even enjoined, among 
Pagans, would, very justly, he prohibited by Christian 
legislators : but it is as being immoral and 'pernicious 
actions that we are bound as legislators to the forcible 
suppression of these. It sounds, indeed, very plausible 
to speak of political society being ordained for higher 
purposes than the temporal welfare of mankind, and 
the security of their persons and property;—the pur¬ 
poses (as they have been contemptuously styled) of 
mere police or traffic: but after all, it is plain that 
external conduct alone comes directly and completely 
within the reach of the coercive power with which the 
magistrate is armed; and external conduct does not 
constitute virtue and religion. The very same action 
may be morally virtuous or vicious according to the 
motives of the agent; and legislative enactments do 
not control motives. All lawgivers forbid us to steal 
our neighbour’s goods; but it is only a divine lawgiver 
that can effectually forbid us to covet them. It sounds 
well to speak of political society deciding what is or is 
not essential and eternal, and giving to its decisions 
(what is God’s alone to give) the “ sanction of the truth 
of Godbut after all, this sanction can only extend 
to those who believe such and such an institution to be 
conformable to the truth of God: and a rational belief 
of this must be based on evidence very different from 
that of its being the law of the land. The legislator 
may, indeed, take upon him to chuse for the people 
what their religion shall be, and to declare authoritatively 
that it is sanctioned by the truth of God; but though 
Q 2 


228 


Monopoly of Civil Bights. 

he can enforce outward conformity, he cannot enforce 
well-grounded conviction. 

And it should be remembered, that since it is a point 
of morality to “ submit to the ordinances of man for the 
Lord’s sake,” and to “ render unto all their due, tri¬ 
bute, to whom tribute is due, fear, to whom fear, honour, 
to whom honour,” it follows that, if it be a part of the 
province of the civil magistrate to enforce not only absti¬ 
nence from crime, but religious and moral agreement 
among all the citizens, then, those Christians who adhered 
to their faith under Pagan governments, w r ere trans¬ 
gressing the precepts of their own Apostles ; and the 
same, with Christians in Mahometan, and with Protes¬ 
tants in Roman Catholic states. For, right , and 
obligation , must be reciprocal: wherever the lawful 
magistrate has a right to enjoin, the subject must be 
bound to obey. 

The Apostles, therefore, it is plain, must have had a 
far different notion of the proper province of the civil 
magistrate ; to whom they exhorted their followers to 
render the obedience due, without the least idea that 
this extended to matters of religion. For we cannot 
surely suppose that the Apostles intended to assign 
unquestioned authority in religious concerns to the 
magistrate, provided he were a Christian, but not other¬ 
wise. This would, indeed, have been to make Christ’s 
kingdom emphatically a “ kingdom of this world —by 
assigning to a Christian magistrate a degree of political 
power which they denied to a heathenand also a 
“ kingdom divided against itselfsince it would have 


Monopoly of Civil Riyhls. 


229 


sanctioned the practice, of which history presents us 
with so many examples, of Christians of one persua¬ 
sion employing the secular arm to put down those of 
another. 

The mode by which the maintainers of the above 
theory usually endeavour to avoid this difficulty, is by 
alleging, that since, after all, we must obey God rather 
than Man, subjects are bound to follow the magistrate’; 
directions in respect of religion, so far, and only so far, 
as they in their conscience believe these to be conform¬ 
able to the Divine will. This may safely be conceded ; 
since it requires no more compliance towards the 
magistrate than is due towards each of our neighbours ; 
whom we clearly ought to agree with in respect of 
religion, so far as we conscientiously believe them to be 
in the right. But this also ought surely to be conceded ; 
that a man who conscientiously differs in his religious 
belief, either from the magistrate or from any of his neigh¬ 
bours, ought not to be either compelled to disown or 
conceal his belief, or (so long as he shows himself an 
orderly, peaceable, and upright member of society) to 
be excluded from the rights of citizenship in what relates 
to temporal concerns. Now this is all I contend for. 

It has however been urged, again, that there is no 
ground for complaining of injustice or intolerance in our 
precluding any but Christians from civil rights, inasmuch 
as every master of a family assumes the right of requiring 
all the members of his household to profess the religion 
he thinks best; and requires, if he judges it proper, that 
his servants should attend family-prayers. And certainly 


230 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 


every man has this right in his own house; nor have any 
of his servants, or of those who may wish to engage in 
his service, any rights at all, relatively to his family, 
except what he may chuse to grant them. He may 
determine what he thinks fit, not only as to the religion, 
but as to the stature and personal appearance of his 
servants. The argument is conclusive, if we admit 
(and not otherwise) that each country belongs to its king, 
or other governors, in the same manner as the house or 
land of any individual belongs to the owner. But no 
one, I apprehend, will, in the nineteenth century, openly 
maintain this. And that the above argument proceeds 
on such a supposition, is a sufficient refutation of it. 
The Rulers are now, at least, universally admitted to be 
the governors, not the owners, of the Country. Even 
the most absolute monarch in modern Europe, professes 
to govern, not (as a master does his servants) for his own 
benefit, but for that of his people ; and to impose no 
burden, privation, or restriction, on any class of his 
subjects, except what is counterbalanced by the general 
good of the community. 

It would not have been worth while therefore to 
notice such an argument, but that it has, if rightly 
applied, great weight on the opposite side. Every 
one, it is admitted, should be allowed to do what he 
will with any thing that belongs to him; provided 
he does not molest his neighbours. It would be unjust 
for any of them to interfere with the management 
of his household, on the ground that he does not 
lay down such rules for it as they think best; and to 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 


231 


impose restrictions on him, compelling or forbidding 
him to take into his service men of this or that class or 
religious persuasion. Now let it be observed that this 
is precisely the kind of interference—and the only kind— 
which I am deprecating. We may think that a man of 
this or that persuasion is not the fittest person to hold 
offices under the Crown, or to sit in Parliament, or to 
be a servant in a gentleman’s family ; but that is a point 
for the Crown,—for the electors,—for the master,—to 
consider. He who would withdraw the matter from 
their discretion, and limit their choice, by maintaining 
a restrictive law, which says, “ you shall not appoint 
such and such persons,” is evidently interfering with 
their general right to appoint whom they please ; and 
is consequently bound to show that some danger to 
the community is likely to ensue from leaving them at 
liberty. 

It may be proper to observe in conclusion, -that in 
protesting against the claim of the civil magistrate to 
prescribe to his subjects what shall be their religious 
faith, I have confined myself to the consideration that 
such a decision is beyond the province of a secular ruler; 
instead of dilating, as some writers have done, on the 
impossibility of having any ruler whose judgment 
shall be infallible. That infallibility cannot be justly 
claimed by uninspired man, is indeed very true, but 
nothing to the present purpose. A man may claim—as 
the Apostles did—infallibility in matters of faith, 
without thinking it allowable to enforce conformity by 
secular coercion ; and, again, on the other hand, he may 


232 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

think it right to employ that coercion, without thinking 
himself infallible. In fact, all legislators do this in respect 
of temporal concerns ; such as confessedly come within 
the province of human legislation. Much as we have heard 
of religious infallibility, no one, I conceive, ever pre¬ 
tended to universal legislative infallibility. And yet 
every legislature enforces obedience, under penalties, 
to the laws it enacts in civil and criminal transactions; 
not, on the ground of their supposing themselves 
exempt from error of judgment; but because they are 
hound to legislate—though conscious of being fallible— 
according to the best of their judgment; and to enforce 
obedience to each law till they shall see cause to repeal 
it. What should hinder them, if religion be one of the 
things coming within their province, from enforcing (on 
the same principle) conformity to their enactments 
respecting that ? A lawgiver sees the expediency of a 
uniform rule, with regard, suppose, to weights and 
measures, or to the descent of property; he frames, 
without any pretensions to infallibility, the best rule he 
can think of; or perhaps, merely a rule which he thinks 
as good as any other ; and enforces uniform compliance 
with it: this being a matter confessedly within his 
province. Now if religion be so too, he may feel 
himself called on to enforce uniformity in that also ; not 
believing himself infallible*either in matters of faith or 
in matters of expediency ; but holding himself bound, 
in each case alike, to frame such enactments as are in 
his judgment advisable, and to enforce compliance with 
them ; as King James in his prefatory proclamation 


233 


Monopoly of Civil Rights. 

respecting the Thirty-nine Articles, announces his 
determination to allow of “ no departure from them 
whatever.” I do not conceive that he thought himself 
gifted with infallibility ; hut that he saw an advantage 
in religious uniformity , and therefore held himself 
authorized and bound to enforce it by the power of the 
secular magistrate. The whole question therefore turns, 
not on any claim to infallibility, but on the extent of 
the province of the civil magistrate , and of the applica¬ 
bility of legal coercion, or of exclusion from civil rights. 

Whether these arguments are unanswerable , is a ques¬ 
tion of opinion; and one on which it would, of course, 
he especially unbecoming in me to decide : but that they 
have been hitherto unanswered —not even an attempt 
having been made (as far as I know) to refute any one 
of them—is a matter of fact: and it is a fact the more 
important, inasmuch as I have reason to believe they 
are not unknown to the principal advocates of the 
opposite conclusions. 




































. • 






























* 



























DISCOURSE I 


REMARKS 


ON THE 

BEST MODE OF CONVEYING SCRIPTURAL 
INSTRUCTION. 












































































































DISCOURSE I. 


REMARKS ON THE BEST MODE OE CONVEYING SCRIP¬ 
TURAL INSTRUCTION. 

A conscientious and well-educated Christian 
Minister needs not to be reminded that, as the 
great source of religious knowledge is the Holy 
Scriptures, so, it is in explaining these to the People, 
and leading them to study Scripture for them¬ 
selves with understanding, and with profitable appli¬ 
cation, that he will be performing the chief duty 
of a religious instructor. But the Bible is often 
perused by Christians, either without even any 
effort of the mind to derive instruction and im¬ 
provement from it, but as if the mere perusal were 
of itself a pious and acceptable deed; or again, 
with some misapprehension of the manner in which 


238 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

it is to be studied, and of the purposes for which 
each book was composed. To guide our hearers, 
therefore, to a profitable study of that which is 
“ able to make them wise unto salvation/' is a task 
which calls not only for our earnest diligence, but 
for much thoughtful discretion and caution. 

I was induced therefore, on the occasion of an 
ordination/ to address to the Candidates and to 
the rest of the congregation, some suggestions on 
the subject; the substance of which I now venture 
to lay before the public, nearly in the same form in 
which it was first printed for the use of the persons 
immediately addressed, and without thinking it 
necessary to apologize for or to alter the style of 
expression originally adopted with a view to oral 
delivery. 

I have written, for the sake of greater brevity, 
not in the form of a regular treatise, so much as in 
that of brief heads, to be developed and filled up, 
should my readers think it worth while, in their 
own private reflections. And on this ground I 
will trust to their excusing what might otherwise 
be censured as an unceremonious conciseness of 
manner. 

a At Christ Church, Dublin, in the year 1836. 


sect. 1.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 239 

§ 1. First. We should explain repeatedly to 
our hearers, that the division of the Scriptures into 
chapters and verses is not the work of the sacred 
writers; and was introduced, in much later times, 
merely for convenience of reference. Strange as it 
may seem, there is no inconsiderable number of 
persons,—even of what are called the educated 
classes,—who are ignorant of this ; b and suppose 
the chapters and verses to be either the divisions 
made by the authors themselves, or at least, adopted 
by editors as a natural way of arranging these 
writings, so as best to exhibit their sense, and 
separate one branch of a discourse from another; 
this being the purposed object of any author who 
himself divides a work of his own into chapters or 
sections. It is true, the most moderate degree of 
attention will shew, that verses, and even chapters, 
often conclude in the midst of a discourse,—of an 
argument,—or even of a sentence. But even such 
as are the most fully aware of the fact, are often 
led, by early custom, or by the analogy of chapters, 


b I mention this as a fact coming under my own know- 
ledge ; and I may add, that one of these persons, on being 
informed how the fact stands, deprecated the undeceiving of 
the people at large, for fear of unsettling their minds ! 


240 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. i. 


sections, and paragraphs, in any other book, (which 
really are the divisions intended by the author,) to 
read the Scriptures with too much reference to these 
arbitrary divisions, and thus, of course, in many 
instances, to take, in consequence, a very different 
view of the sense of the sacred writers. For I need 
hardly remind you, that the meaning attached to 
any treatise, depends not merely on the words used, 
but also on the arrangement and distribution of 
what is said. 

The evil I have been alluding to, is aggravated 
in the case of those persons who make a practice, 
in their private perusal of the Scriptures, of reading 
the lessons for the day,—the chapters appointed to 
be publicly read in church,—and confining them¬ 
selves to this course of study; as if the lessons had 
been selected with a view to the private ,domestic 
use of each member of the Church. On such a plan 
some portions of Scripture, not only instructive, but 
needful for the right understanding of other parts, 
are left unread ; while other portions are read over 
and over, but often in such an order, or rather such 
a disorder,—so broken up, disjointed, and thrown 
together in fragments, that much of what might 
easily be made intelligible to a reader of ordinary 


sect. 1.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 241 

abilities and acquirements, is either very little under¬ 
stood, or, sometimes, most hurtfnlly misunderstood. 

Explain to your hearers, therefore,—and, not 
content with having explained it once for all, re¬ 
mind them frequently of,—the origin and design of 
the chapters and verses ; warn them against the 
mistakes likely to result from reading with refer¬ 
ence to them ; and advise them, in their private 
studies, usually to take up some one book, or con¬ 
siderable portion of a book, and apply themselves to 
that, at intervals, till they have gone through it. It 
would be all the better if they were advised not to 
make a practice of beginning (in each day’s reading) 
at the beginning, or ending at the end, of a chapter ; 
but to endeavour to counteract the habit of attend¬ 
ing to chapters. And every reader of Scripture who 
seeks for a clear understanding of what he is reading, 
should be admonished, among other things, always to 
look back, before he begins any portion, to the part 
immediately preceding; which will often be quite 
necessary to throw light on what follows. 

For instance, in reading any one of our Lord’s 
discourses, much will often depend on our being 
aware whether it was addressed, “ to his disciples,” 
or “ to the multitudea circumstance which the 


R 


242 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. i. 


sacred writers almost always take care to notice ; but 
which is not thought of by the reader who begins al¬ 
ways at the beginning of a chapter, and consequently, 
in many instances, in the very middle of a discourse. 

In other parts of Scripture also, various diffi¬ 
culties and mistakes, and various kinds and degrees 
of indistinctness of meaning, arise from the same 
cause. And I think it will be profitable to collect 
and lay before your people occasionally, some in¬ 
stances of this kind, in order to impress more 
effectually on their minds the caution I have been 
speaking of. For instance, to take one that has 
chanced to catch my view on opening the Bible 
almost at random, if you look to the 10th chapter 
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, you will see 
at once that the lesson the Apostle is inculcating in 
the latter part of the chapter concludes with a sen¬ 
tence which is made the first verse of the succeed¬ 
ing chapter. 

Again, you may easily point out, in the Second 
Epistle to the Corinthians, that the 3d, 4th, and 5th 
chapters can hardly be, any one of them, distinctly 
understood by itself: especially as a kind of parent 
thesis is introduced at verse 6th of the 3d chapter 
which is continued to verse 6th of the ensuing. 


sect. 1.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 243 

Again, the 27th chapter of Genesis, which is one 
of those appointed to be read as a Sunday lesson, 
is but too apt to leave a mischievously false im¬ 
pression on the mind of one who does not read the 
previous portion of history contained in the 25th 
chapter, verse 23d ; (a chapter which is not read as 
a Sunday lesson) the impression, namely, of Jacob's 
having obtained the birthright, and the consequent 
preference of his descendants over his brother's, as 
a consequence of his fraud ; though the divine decree 
had been declared before the children were born ; 
and the only fruit of Jacob's fraud was exile, 
distress, and humiliation to himself, and grief to the 
partial mother who had prompted him to the sin. c 

A still more important instance perhaps is the 
one I slightly adverted to in my last Charge, that of 
the 7th and 8th chapters of the Epistle to the 
Romans. Hardly any one, I think, reading the 
whole passage continuously, without any regard 
to the arbitrary break at the close of the 7 th 
chapter, would be in danger of supposing that the 
Apostle Paul, though speaking in the first person, 
is describing his own actual character, in his re¬ 
generate, sanctified state, when he describes a man 

c See Benson’s Hulsean Lectures, Second Course. 

R 2 


244 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. i. 


“ sold under sin,”—“ brought into subjection to 
the law of sin,”— “ doing the evil that he would 
not,”—“ not doing the good that he would,”—and 
living a life of wretched contradiction to his own 
judgment. The contrast is so marked between this 
description, and that which immediately follows, of 
“ those that are in Christ Jesus,” (including, no one 
can doubt, the Apostle himself,) “ who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit,” who “ being spiritu¬ 
ally-minded have life and peace,” “ and through 
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the flesh,”—the 
contrast, I say, is so marked between these two de¬ 
scriptions, that there would be little danger of any 
one’s supposing they could be meant to apply to one 
and the same person at the same time. But the mis¬ 
take, which is not unfrequently made, is the result, I 
conceive, of the reader’s being accustomed to stop at 
the end of the 7th chapter, and then, a day after, or 
perhaps a week, or a month after, to begin the peru¬ 
sal of the 8th chapter, as if it were a distinct treatise. 

The writings of the Apostle Paul do certainly 
contain many difficulties ; but the easiest book in 
the world might be made unintelligible by being 
studied in that manner. 

In the instance now before us, you may easily. 


sect. 1.] conveying Scriptural Instruction 245 

I think, point out to the learner, that in the 5th 
and 6th verses of the 7th chapter, the Apostle is 
contrasting the conditions, of “ those who are in 
the flesh/' and “ bring forth fruit unto death,” and 
those who are in Christ, who “ bring forth fruit 
unto God:” and that he proceeds to expand and 
develop that contrast more fully, in what follows. 
After having noticed (in the earlier part of the 7th 
chapter) the case of a Gentile destitute of revelation, 
he proceeds to describe, first, the person who is 
“ under the law,” with a knowledge and approbation 
of what is good, and an habitual pract ice of what is 
evil; and then, (from the beginning of ch. viii) the 
person who is “in Christ Jesus,” and “walks not 
after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” 

And that the Apostle really is describing two dif¬ 
ferent, and indeed opposite characters (which those 
only I think will doubt, who have been early accus¬ 
tomed to peruse chapters as so many distinct treatises, 
you may easily evince to those of your hearers who are 
attentive and reflecting, by joining together portions 
of each description, and pointing out the monstrous 
and absurd incongruity that would result; as a 
proof that they cannot be both applicable to the 
same person at the same time : as for instance,— 


246 


On the Bed Mode of 


[disc. i. 


“ There is, therefore, now no condemnation to 
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit, but who do the evil 
they would not, and do not the good that they would: 
.... for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus 
hath made me free from the law of sin and death ; 
0 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from 
the body of this death ? . . . That the righteousness 
of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after 
the flesh but after the Spirit; for to will is present 
with me, but how to perform that which is good, 1 
find not. ... So then they that are in the flesh can¬ 
not please God, but we are not in the flesh, but in 
the Spirit; but lam carnal, sold under sin &c. &c. 

I have insisted the more earnestly on the right 
interpretation of this passage, because the opposite 
interpretation, goes to nullify practically, all our 
labours in the inculcation of moral duty. For, 
when any description or example is set before men, 
by way of pattern, we may be quite sure that this 
will be made the standard, and that general princi¬ 
ples and precepts will be practically explained, and 
limited, and modified, in their application, accord¬ 
ing to that standard. We can never hope that our 
hearers, though living in sin, and only occasionally 


sect. 1.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 247 

bewailing it, will really feel much alarm and uneasi¬ 
ness, while they believe themselves to be on a level 
with the Apostle Paul. 

The interpretation I have been censuring I have 
heard defended as a mode of inculcating the im¬ 
portant lesson, of the necessity even in the most 
advanced Christian, of continual vigilance against 
the infirmities and evil tendencies of our nature, 
and the temptations to which he is still exposed, 
and which he can resist only by divine help. The 
lesson is indeed true and important; and is incul¬ 
cated, though not in this,—in several other parts of 
the sacred writings, as, for instance, 1 Cor. ix. 24— 
27. But we must never presume to distort the 
sense of any passage of Scripture for the sake of 
inculcating even a scriptural truth, which was not in 
the intention of the writer. In the present in¬ 
stance, however, the Apostle’s words do not, and 
cannot inculcate such a lesson; for he is describing, 
not a man vigilantly watching against the frailty 
of his nature, and earnestly struggling against, 
and by divine aid, subduing it; but, on the con¬ 
trary, one who is actually “ carnal, sold under sin,” 
—brought “ into captivity to the law of sin,”—- 
and not merely tempted to do, but habitually doing 


[djsc. I. 


248 On the Best Mode of 

“ the evil that he would not/’ And if this be 
understood as the Apostle’s description of himself 
in his Christian state, this, so far from inculcating 
the lesson of vigilant self-distrust and resistance to 
evil, would put an end to every effort of the kind, 
as hopeless, useless, and even presumptuous. 

The perplexity and hurtful mistakes resulting from 
the study of detached passages of Scripture, without 
reference to the general drift of the context, might 
be illustrated by many more, and perhaps stronger 
instances. Those here noticed were taken almost 
at hazard, as the first that I happened to recollect. 

You will find frequent occasions for setting before 
your people, cautions and explanations of the kind 
here alluded to; and there are few parts of your 
duty as instructors in which you can be more 
useful to them. 

§ 2. In giving religious instruction to any class 
of persons, but especially to the class I have more 
particularly in view at present,—those just passing 
from the condition of children to that of adults,— 

I warn you—I do not say, against setting up your¬ 
selves, but, permitting them to set you up—as 
oracles,—as a decisive authority,—as a final appeal 


sect. 2.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 249 

in respect of religious truth. You must not only 
incite and teach them, to read, and to read pro¬ 
fitably,—to “ mark, learn, and inwardly digest ” 
the Scriptures, but you must leave and lead them 
to exercise the best of the powers of understanding 
that Providence has bestowed, to “ prove all things, 
and hold fast that which is right—to allow to 
no mere uninspired man, or Church, or other Body 
of uninspired men, the claim either of superseding 
Scripture, or of possessing a joint and equal au¬ 
thority with Scripture, or pronouncing and deciding 
infallibly what is the sense of Scripture: but like 
the Beroeans, d to “ search the Scriptures daily 
whether those things are so 99 which we teach. 

It might seem superfluous to set forth a principle 
which is the very foundation of the Reform intro¬ 
duced by our own and the other Protestant churches; 
and so distinctly recognised in our Articles; which 
declare the liability to error not only of Churches 
but of general Councils, (Art. 19, 20, and 21,) and 

d The Berceans indeed might have been convinced of Paul’s 
divine mission by the “ signs of an apostle,”— the miracles 
which Paul displayed—even without resorting to any other 
evidence. But the belief in magical powers was in those 
days so prevalent as to render the prophecies always very 
important, and to some persons indispensable. 


250 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 


disclaim the obligation of receiving anything as 
divine truth but what is contained in Scripture or 
“ may be proved thereby/’ 

But persons are to be found who while they assent 
to such declarations, yet contrive to evade the force 
of them, and stigmatize as heterodox all appeal to 
private judgment, except their own judgment, and 
that of such as agree with them; setting up the 
claim either to ^fallibility, or, with still more pre¬ 
sumption,—a right to enforce on others the deci¬ 
sions of a fallible mind. 

This apparently perplexing inconsistency may be 
unravelled and explained by asking the question,— 
when it has been admitted that the Scriptures are 
the sole unerring standard, and that we are not 
obliged to receive anything that “ cannot be proved 
from Scripture,”—proved to whom ? A “ standard,” 
to whom ? If the Scriptures are the standard to us, 
the Christian people, and we are bound in conscience 
to receive only what is thence proved to our con¬ 
viction, then, we are left in possession of the liberty 
of private judgment: but if it be meant that we 
are to receive whatever is proved to your satisfaction 
from Scripture,—if Scripture is to be the standard 
for you, but your faith is to be the standard for ours, 


sect. 2.J conveying Scriptural Instruction. 251 

—then, instead of liberty, you place on us a double 
yoke; you impose two restrictions instead of one; both, 
and each, calling for a miraculous attestation of your 
infallibility. We are required to believe, first, that 
whatever you declare, is divine truth; and secondly, 
over and above this, that it is a truth revealed in Scrip¬ 
ture ; and we are to take your word for both. ‘ c Jesus, 

I know; and Paul I know; but who are ye ? ” 

By such a procedure, uninspired and fallible men 
(whether acting as individuals only, or as a Body, 
makes no difference) arrogate to themselves an 
authority which belongs only to God and his in¬ 
spired messengers; and the Creeds, Articles, Cate¬ 
chisms, and other formularies of a church, or the 
expositions, deductions and assertions of an indi¬ 
vidual theologian, are, practically, put in the place 
of the Holy Scriptures. 6 The tendency is so natural 
and so strong, that it requires constant and vigilant 
precaution to guard against losing sight of the 
proper and legitimate use of Articles, Confessions, 
and other human compositions, and applying them 
to a different and an unauthorized purpose/ To 
decide what persons can or cannot be members of 

e See Essays on Komish Errors, Essay IV. § 7. 

f See Essay on the Omission of Creeds, &c. in Scripture. 


252 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

the same religious community on earth, uniting in 
public worship and other observances, is no more 
than it is possible, and allowable, and requisite, for 
uninspired man to undertake ; and this is implied, 
and is all that is necessarily implied, in the ordi¬ 
nances and formularies of every Church: but to 
decide who are or are not partakers of the benefits 
of the Christian covenant, and to prescribe to one’s 
fellow-mortals, as the terms of salvation, the im¬ 
plicit adoption of- our own interpretations, is a most 
fearful presumption in men not producing miracu¬ 
lous proofs of an immediate divine mission. 

You, that are engaged in the Ministry, will never 
I trust for a moment forget the solemn vows by 
which you are bound to “ instruct out of the Scrip¬ 
ture the people committed to your care,” and to 
teach nothing as essential to salvation but “ what 
you are persuaded is contained in, or may be proved 
by the Scriptures.” What you are to teach, is, be 
it observed, not, whatever others are convinced, but, 
what you are yourselves convinced, is declared or 
implied in Scripture. Were you to inculcate what 
you were not yourselves thus convinced of, though 
it might chance to be, in fact, scriptural, you, never¬ 
theless, having received it on human authority, 


sect. 2.] co7iveying Scriptural Instruction . 253 

would have been setting up Man in the place of 
God. And to repudiate this procedure is the grand 
fundamental principle of Protestantism. If there¬ 
fore you are to teach as divine truth, that only which 
you are convinced is scriptural, it is plain you are to 
call on your hearers to receive as divine truth, that 
only which they are convinced of as scriptural. If 
you direct them, or encourage them, or leave them, 
to receive doctrines on your own, or any mere 
human authority, you are sacrificing the very prin¬ 
ciple which you have sworn to maintain. 

It is urged on the opposite side that it is a 
mockery to talk of the right of private judgment 8 in 
the unlearned,—that is, the great mass of mankind, 
—who have nothing on which to found an inde¬ 
pendent judgment of their own, that can deserve the 
name; but being ignorant and gross-minded— 
strangers to the original languages of the Scriptures, 
and to ecclesiastical history,—unintellectual, unre- 
flective, and uninformed,—must either acquiesce in 
the instructions and assurances of the learned men 
who bear rule over them, or else be “ blown about 
with every wind of doctrine, 5:1 without rudder or 
compass to direct their course. 

* See Hawkins’s Duty of Private Judgment. 


254 On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

The practical result of such principles as these, 
experience shews to be such as reason would 
have led us to anticipate. The guides to whose 
authoritative direction the people are thus left, 
soon come to think that they themselves also may 
as well be content to follow the guidance of their 
predecessors, instead of being at the pains to 
“ prove all things/' by a laborious search into the 
Scriptures. They deem it enough to acquiesce 
in the judgment of the ancient Fathers; and to 
ascertain this from the statements of commentators, 
and compilers from the Fathers,—from abridge¬ 
ments of these compilations,—and ultimately, from 
brief compendiums framed from these abridge¬ 
ments ; so that, in the end,—and that, no remote 
end,—the wise and learned, on whom the mass of 
the People are implicitly to rely, become e^wise 
and mlearned, there being no one to detect their 
deficiencies ; ignorant of Scripture, of which they 
were left to be the authoritative interpreters,— 
ignorant of it, in fact, from that very cause;—and 
in short, “ blind leaders of the blind." 

It is remarkable that those who incur such 
results, rather than concede the point of the right 
of private judgment, are yet compelled, nevertheless, 


sect. 2.J conveying Scriptural Instruction. 255 

to leave men to tlieir private judgment after all, on 
deciding the most important questions. For those 
who, without displaying the decisive credentials 
from heaven, of plain miraculous powers, yet call 
on us to surrender our judgment to their guidance, 
must leave us to decide, whether well or ill, by our 
own private judgment, the momentous questions— 
first, whether we shall make that surrender to 
any human authority,—and next, whether they, 
or some others, shall be thus received as our 
guides. 

The diversities, indeed, and errors to which 
private judgment is liable, in all matters not 
admitting of mathematical demonstration, might 
naturally lead some persons, following their own 
conjectures, to suppose, that in a divine dispen¬ 
sation, a provision is requisite, and therefore to 
be expected, for a power of infallibly interpreting 
Scripture, and deciding finally all questions that 
may arise; to be permanently established on earth, 
in some person or Body, whose authority should 
be ascertained and supported by unquestionable 
miracles. 

But our conjecture as to what is requisite or 
reasonable, cannot alter facts. So it is, that no 


256 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 


tribunal, possessing these miraculous credentials, 
does exist. Private judgment, however incom¬ 
petent, must be exercised, well or ill, whether we 
will or no; for even those who are willing to 
forego the right of private judgment, and resign 
themselves wholly to another’s guidance, are com¬ 
pelled to judge among conflicting claims, whose 
guidance it shall be. Whether they decide to 
inquire into and compare together the several 
appeals to Scripture,—to Tradition,—to the autho¬ 
rity of the ancient Fathers, or of more modern 
divines;—or again, to adopt without inquiry the 
religion of their parents; or, lastly, to assent 
implicitly to the dictation of some one who pro¬ 
fessing to be emphatically, a person who “knows 
the Gospel,” strenuously asserts his right to their 
submission, — in all cases, they do, and must, 
exercise, for once at least, their private judgment, 
(however weakly and wrongly,) in deciding a 
question notoriously doubtful, and much con¬ 
troverted. 

The right, then, of private judgment in religious 
matters, being one which God has not merely given 
permission that men may exercise, but made pro¬ 
vision that they must, it is for us his ministers and 


sect. 2.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 257 

stewards, to do our best towards training our 
People,,—especially the younger portion of them,— 
to exercise their judgment rightly, and profitably 
for their eternal interests. In addition to all other 
instruction, we must also warn them of the respon¬ 
sibility that is thus laid on them: a responsibility 
from which we cannot relieve them, if we would; 
and of which they cannot divest themselves. 

I am not, you will observe, cautioning you 
against teaching any one to receive his religion 
on your own authority, as infallible expounders of 
Scripture. I do not attribute to you the wish to 
claim any such infallibility; and, indeed, if any 
did go so far in arrogance as to advance such a 
claim, I am not so weak as to suppose he would 
consent to forego that claim at my bidding. But 
I am cautioning you that you should (as I just now 
observed) not only leave but lead your hearers to 
inquire, and reflect, and judge, to the best of their 
power :—that you should warn them against that 
implicit and uninquiring deference for your autho¬ 
rity, which many of your people, but most especially 
those young persons whom you have first initiated 
into the knowledge of their religion, will be but too 
ready to offer. 


s 


258 


On the Best Mode of [disc. t. 

Trite, popular declaimers on priestcraft, are 
accustomed to represent one man as prevailing 
on several others to surrender the use of their own 
reason, and rely wholly on his ; yielding a blind 
submission to his dictates, and induced by his 
persuasions to accept him as a kind of mediator 
between God and them. But the opposite repre¬ 
sentation is quite as often correct. Men will 
usually be more ready to thank any writer or 
preacher, who places them in a well-trodden road, 
which they have only to keep to, without looking 
on either side, than one who presents them with a 
map of the country they are to traverse “better 
pleased with one who saves them the trouble of 
thinking, than with one who gives them trouble, 
by inciting, encouraging, and directing their studies. 
Hence, those who have been used to look up to 
their minister as a man of learning and ability 
superior to their own, of eminent piety, and perhaps, 
of great eloquence, are in general strongly disposed 
to refer to him as their ultimate standard; and to 
conclude that as he may be presumed to have good 
grounds for every thing he says, they may save 
themselves the labour of exercising their own 
inferior powers, and give themselves up to his 


sect. 3.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 259 

guidance without further thought. And the offer 
of this homage coming from those who gratefully 
love and venerate their Pastor, constitutes a strong 
temptation, not merely to the worldly and am¬ 
bitious, but to a man of sincere piety, convinced 
that what his people have received from him, is, in 
fact, the truth,—fearing that inquiry might lead 
some of them astray from the truth,—and satisfied 
that, as it is, they are right and safe: not con¬ 
sidering that they are right only by accident,—that 
even if their opinions be right, still they are not 
right in holding them;—and that he is sanctioning 
a principle, or at least encouraging a disposition, 
which is, at least, as favourable to falsehood as to 
truth;—that the setting up of fallible Man as a 
decisive authority, will lead many to “ teach for 
doctrines the commandments of men,” and others, 
when teaching what are, in fact, divine truths, to 
teach them as “ the commandments of men ; ” thus 
building the whole superstructure of faith on a false 
and unlawful foundation. 

§ 3. When I add that I think we should teach 
our people not only to understand the scriptural 
grounds of the doctrines they receive, but also 
s 2 


260 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. I. 


the rational grounds for receiving the Scriptures 
themselves, that is, the evidences which establish 
their divine authority, so as to “ be ready to give 
to every one that asketh them, a reason of the 
hope that is in them,” I know, that notwithstanding 
the apostle Peter’s authority for such a procedure, 
it will be exposed to the scorn and ridicule of some 
persons; who deride the idea of laying the evi¬ 
dences of Christianity before unlearned hearers, as 
a thing impossible, and if possible, quite super¬ 
fluous, as long as they acquiesce in our conclusions, 
and are troubled with no doubts,—who conceive 
that the mass of mankind cannot have, and need 
not have, any better, or any other, reason for hold¬ 
ing the Christian Paith, than Pagans or Mahometans 
have for their belief. For they also have the evi¬ 
dence,—such as it is,—of having adopted their 
faith from their parents, or their superiors in 
knowledge or in station; and often, of finding 
consolation and satisfaction in their religion; for 
you cannot be ignorant that the grossest and 
weakest superstitions have often proved soothing 
and gratifying to the ignorant devotee. 

As far as regards the question of the possibility 
of persons of ordinary ability and education be- 


sect. 3.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 201 

coming Christians on rational conviction, we should 
recollect that the heathen among whom our mis¬ 
sionaries have laboured,—in many instances not 
without success—will generally have insisted on 
some satisfactory reason being given why they 
should forsake the religion of their forefathers. 
And if there be any of those who have been 
brought up as nominal Christians, who are yet 
below these heathens in the disposition to seek, 
and the capacity to understand, a reason it is for 
us to endeavour to impart to them some degree of 
intelligence, of rational curiosity, and of interest in 
the subject of religion. Else they will be likely to 
remain in many respects greatly inferior to those 
converts from heathenism. For 1st, they will be 
unable to establish or support, when occasion may 
require, the wavering faith of a brother; which the 
apostle manifestly considers as incumbent on the 
Christian ; for he tells us not merely to have , but 
to be prepared to “give, a reason of the hope that 
is in us2dly, should no such occasion occur, 
their indolent unthinking acquiescence in whatever 
they are told, will be a faith that ill deserves the 
name: and 3dly, this faith,—such as it is, will be 
likely to be overthrown by the first plausible objec- 


262 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

tion that may chance to fall in their way. The 
circumstance that the presumption is in favour of 
whatever is established, will have operated, through 
the stagnation of mind thence resulting, as a dis¬ 
advantage. 

“It might be hastily imagined that there is 
necessarily an advantage in having the presumption 
on one’s own side, and the burden of proof on the 
adversary’s. But it is often much the reverse. For 
example, ‘ In no other instance perhaps,’ (says 
Dr. Hawkins, in his valuable Essay on Tradition,) 

£ besides that of religion, do men commit the 
very illogical mistake, of first canvassing all the 
objections against any particular system whose 
pretensions to truth they would examine, before 
they consider the direct arguments in its favour.’ 
(P. 82.) But why, it may be asked, do they make 
such a mistake in this case? An answer which 
I think would apply to a large proportion of such 
persons, is this : because a man having been brought 
up in a Christian country, has lived perhaps among 
such as have been accustomed from their infancy to 
take for granted the truth of their religion, and 
even to regard an uninquiring assent as a mark of 
commendable faith ; and hence, he has probably 


sect. 3.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 263 

never even thought of proposing to himself the 
question—Why should I receive Christianity as a 
divine revelation ? Christianity being nothing new 
to him, and th z presumption being in favour of it, 
while the burden of proof lies on its opponents, he 
is not stimulated to seek reasons for believing it, 
till he finds it controverted. And when it is con¬ 
troverted,—when an opponent urges—How do you 
reconcile this, and that, and the other, with the idea 
of a divine revelation ? these objections strike by 
their novelty ,—by their being opposed to what is 
generally received. He is thus excited to inquiry; 
which he sets about,—naturally enough, but very 
unwisely,—by seeking for answers to all these objec¬ 
tions ; and fancies that unless they can all be satis¬ 
factorily solved, he ought not to receive the religion. 
‘ As if ' (says the author already cited) ‘ there could 
not be truth, and truth supported by irrefragable 
arguments, and yet at the same time obnoxious to 
objections, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy 
of solution/ ‘There are objections' (said Dr. Johnson) 
‘ against a plenum and objections against a vacuum; 
but one of them must be true.' He adds that ‘ sensible 
men really desirous of discovering the truth, will 
perceive that reason directs them to examine first the 


264 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 


argument in favour of that side of the question, 
where the first presumption of truth appears. And 
the presumption is manifestly in favour of that reli¬ 
gious creed already adopted by the country. . . . 
Their very earliest inquiry therefore must be into 
the direct arguments, for the authority of that book 
on which their country rests its religion/ 

“ But reasonable as such a procedure is, there is, 
as I have said, a strong temptation, and one which 
should be carefully guarded against, to adopt the 
opposite course;—to attend first to the objections 
which are brought against what is established, and 
which, for that very reason, rouse the mind from a 
state of apathy. Accordingly, I have not found 
that this ‘very illogical mistake’ is by any means 
peculiar to the case of religion. 

“ When Christianity was first preached, the state 
of things was reversed. The presumption was 
against it, as being a novelty. ‘ Seeing that all 
these things cannot he sjpoken against , ye ought to 
be quiet / was a sentiment which favoured an in¬ 
dolent acquiescence in the old Pagan worship. The 
stimulus of novelty was all on the side of those 
who came to overthrow this by a new religion. 
The first inquiry of any one who at all attended to 


sect. 4.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 265 

the subject, must have been, not,—What are the 
objections to Christianity;—but on what grounds 
do these men call on me to receive them as divine 
messengers? And the same appears to be the 
case with those Polynesians among whom Mis¬ 
sionaries are labouring. They begin by inquiring— 
‘ Why should we receive this religion ?’ And those 
of them accordingly who have embraced it, appear 
to be Christians on a much more rational and 
deliberate conviction than many among us, even 
of those who in general maturity of intellect and 
civilization, are advanced considerably beyond those 
islanders. 11 

“ lam not depreciating the inestimable advan¬ 
tages of a religious education: but, pointing out 
the peculiar temptations which accompany it. The 
Jews and Pagans had, in their early prejudices, 
greater difficulties to surmount than ours ; but they 
were difficulties of a different kind.”' 

§ 4. But if the Christian people, (I can imagine 
it said,) are to exercise their private judgment in 
deciding on the authenticity and on the sense of the 

h See Note A, at the end of this Discourse. 

Elements of Logic, Appendix. 


266 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. i. 


Scriptures, what need is there of clerical instruc¬ 
tors ? or what occasion for theological learning ? 

I will take leave to answer this question by citing 
a passage from a sermon which I published not long 
since : 

“ But is learning therefore useless ? My Chris¬ 
tian friends, it would take more than a whole life 
of the ablest and most assiduous student, now , to 
place him even on a level , in many points, with 
such plain men as those I have been speaking of, 
who were the hearers of Jesus and His Apostles. 
Let any man have acquired something approaching 
to that knowledge of the languages in which the 
prophets and Apostles spoke and wrote, which their 
hearers had from the cradle,—let him have gained 
by diligent study, a knowledge of those countries, 
customs, nations, events, and other circumstances, 
with which they had been familiar from childhood, 
—and let him thus have enabled himself, by a dili¬ 
gent comparison of the several parts of Scripture 
with each other, to understand the true meaning of 
passages, which were simple and obvious to men of 
ordinary capacity eighteen centuries ago, and he will 
be far more learned than it is possible for the gene¬ 
rality of mankind to be now. He will also be a 


sect. 4.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 267 

more learned theologian, in the proper sense, than 
any metaphysical speculator on things divine; and 
what is more, such learning, in proportion as it is 
acquired, is profitable to him, not only as a Chris¬ 
tian, but also as a Christian instructor. It will help 
him to explain, not indeed those things concerning 
God which the Scriptures omit , but what they con¬ 
tain; to lay before himself and his hearers, not 
what God has thought fit to keep secret, but what 
He has revealed. 

“ Yet such studies as these will not give him an 
advantage over those early Christians of plain com¬ 
mon sense and moderate education, who had read 
and heard little on the subject, except the writings 
and discourses of those apostles and evangelists 
whose works have come down to us. And what 
was, to these early Christians, the natural and un¬ 
strained sense of those writings, is what we should 
seek to understand and to believe, if we would have 
our faith the same as theirs I 

In truth, there is even more need of a welh edu¬ 
cated clergy, diligent and judiciously trained in 
acquiring and imparting sound religious knowledge, 
if they are to be instructors , properly speaking, of 
the people, than if they are to be the oracles , and 


268 


On the Best Mode of 


[disc. i. 


supposed unerring guides. If you were to be 
appointed as pastors over an ignorant and unre- 
flective People, who were taught to take your word 
for everything, and to regard it as a sinful pre¬ 
sumption to inquire,—to reason—to think and 
judge for themselves,—your acquirements might be 
very scanty,—your whole mental cultivation very 
deficient,—without much danger of the deficiency 
being felt and remarked. And you might compress 
into a few sentences, which might easily and quickly 
be learned by rote, (even by persons who attached 
but little meaning to them) a compendious sum¬ 
mary of the tenets to be received, and the precepts 
to be observed, by your hearers, as the result of the 
researches and reflections of able, and learned, and 
pious divines, whose guidance ordinary Christians 
ought to follow. Your teaching,—if it could be so 
called,—would consist in continual repetitions, in 
very slightly varied expressions, of this summary of 
doctrine and duty, accompanied with exhortations 
to a compliance with it. 

Far more laborious, (I say this without any fear 
of thus disheartening a minister really anxious to 
devote himself to his Master’s service,) far more 
laborious is the task, of qualifying yourselves, by 


sect. 4.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 269 

sound learning, and mental cultivation, and habits 
of reflection, for the training of your hearers to the 
profitable study of Scripture; by explaining to them 
the general drift and design of each writer,—the 
sense of his expressions,—the significance of his 
allusions,—and the character and circumstances of 
those for whom he is writing; till the People, thus 
learning, “ line upon line, and precept upon pre¬ 
cept/' with an earnest application of their own 
minds to the study, come gradually not only to 
acquire the knowledge, but to imbibe the character 
and tone of temper, which the Scriptures are de¬ 
signed to impart. The apostles and evangelists can 
teach and inculcate Christianity better than we can. 
Be it our care to lead our flock to the diligent study 
and clear understanding of their writings; and the 
chief part of our work will be accomplished. 

Besides the other modes of employment espe¬ 
cially suitable to you in reference to this branch 
of our profession, I earnestly recommend the 
habitual study of the original language of, at least, 
the New-Test ament Scriptures. And let no appre¬ 
hensions of being sneered at as pedants, anxious to 
make a display before the ignorant, of your slender 
learning,—let no dread of scoffers of any class,— 


270 On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

deter yon from imparting to your people such in¬ 
struction and such advantages in the explaining of 
Scripture as you may be enabled to afford, by a 
careful study of it in the original. I give this 
caution, because I know that there are persons, of 
no small weight with a certain portion at least of 
the members of our communion, who deride with 
the bitterest scorn what they call the arrogant pre¬ 
tensions of young men just entering on the ministry, 
who must needs be telling their hearers on every 
opportunity, how such and such a passage reads in 
the original. No doubt a foolish or an ill use may 
be made of any knowledge, deep or superficial, on 
any subject. No doubt there may be pedantry in 
theology as well as in other studies: and it might 
be added that of theological pedantry itself there 
are several kinds besides that which has reference 
to the original languages. But to avoid pedantry, 
and escape ridicule or censure for alleged pedantry, 
by consenting to forego valuable knowledge, or to 
abstain from all profitable use of it, would be too 
dear a purchase. And that a knowledge of the 
original language of almost any book, does enable 
us, by reference to that original, the better to un¬ 
derstand and to explain to others the sense of a 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 271 

translation, no one, I suppose, can doubt, who has 
even a slight knowledge of any besides his mother 
tongue. 

§ 5. Our authorized version of the Bible is a 
very valuable one; and indeed considering the 
time when it was made, its excellence is a matter of 
wonder. k But supposing it more than this,—sup¬ 
posing it to be completely perfect in all particulars, 
still there must be many expressions in one language 
which cannot be adequately represented in another. 

Moreover, you will often find in our version two 
or three quite different words, of distinct etymology, 
employed to render either the very same word, or 
words closely allied, in the original; from which it 
cannot but result that in many cases, part of the 
force at least, of the expression will be lost. For 
instance, “ If any man defile the temple of God, 
him will God destroy:” no mere English reader 
would be likely to suspect that the same word in 
the original corresponds to “ defile” and “ destroy.” 
Again, the verb “ to love,” and the substantive 
“ charity,” though, on reflection, the reader does 

k See Dr. Hinds’s valuable treatise on “ the Authorized 
Version 


272 


On the Best Mode of 


DISC. I. 


perceive the connexion in sense, do not suggest this 
so immediately, so strongly, or so constantly as 
ayairdv and dydiry] do to the student of the original. 
Again, when our Lord says, “ every branch in me 
that beareth fruit, He (the Father) purgeth it that 
it may bring forth more fruit ;” and, “ye are clean, 
but not all,” the discourse has usually an uncon¬ 
nected appearance to the English reader, from his 
not at once perceiving the reference to each other 
of the words “ purgeth,” and “ clean,” (/ caQalpei , 
and KaOapos.) So also when Peter speaks of “puri¬ 
fying their hearts by faith ” (Acts xv. 9), it is apt to 
escape the notice of the reader of the translation 
that he must have had in his mind the words 
accompanying his vision ; “ what God hath cleansed 
&c. (Acts x. 15.) In these instances perhaps the 
translation might be improved, by using throughout 
the words “ purifieth,” and “ pure;” but you will 
find innumerable other like cases in which the only 
remedy is to introduce some paraphrase, or distinct 
remarks and explanations. Again the title of “ the 
Comforter ” is usually regarded, even by educated 
persons, as so peculiarly the designation of the 
Holy Spirit, that they would perhaps be startled at 
being told, or might even be ready to deny the 


273 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 

assertion, that it is applied to Jesus Christ. But the 
very title of Paraclete, usually rendered “ Com¬ 
forter/’ the scholar will find applied to our Lord 
Jesus, in 1 John ii. 1. 

Then again, of the converse inconvenience, there 
are many instances: I mean where two or more 
words, of different force in the original, are rendered, 
sometimes unavoidably, by one , in English. Thus, 
aBrjs and yeewa are both rendered by the word 
“ hell.” Temple, again, is the only translation 
given of lepov, which included the courts of the 
Temple, wherein the people assembled, (and which 
they occasionally profaned by exposing merchandize) 
and vaos, the very House itself. “ Priest ” also is 
used (not indeed in our Bible translation, but in 
the Prayer-Book) in its etymological sense, as 
answering to (or rather being) the word Presbyte- 
ros; and again, in our version of the Scriptures, as 
the translation of Hiereus, the sacrificing priest of 
the Jews and Pagans; an office which, in the 
Christian church, our sacred writers, with sedulous 
care, confine to Christ alone. 1 

1 See Sermon on the Christian Priesthood, appended to the 
last edition of the Bampton Lectures. See also Eden’s Theo¬ 
logical Dictionary, Articles “ Temple,” “ Priest,” &c. 


T 


274 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

Of this class also, you may find many instances 
which will call for explanations from you. 

Moreover, there are many cases in which the 
want of variety of inflections in our language, occa¬ 
sions an ambiguity, which cannot easily be removed 
but by a circumlocution. For instance, “ If our 
gospel is hid, it is hid to them that are lost ” this 
expression might very naturally, — indeed most 
naturally,—convey the idea of something past and 
complete; — of persons actually lost. But that 
sense would have been conveyed by the word 
dTro\co\oo-L ; whereas the word used is aTroWyiievois; 
—persons “ losing their way,” or, as we say, “ on 
the road to ruin.” So again, the opposite word 
crco&jjLevoi™ does not signify persons who are saved, 
that is, who have been saved,—whose salvation is 
complete,—but persons in the way of salvation ; 
as the Israelites were (in respect of temporal suc¬ 
cess) when they marched out of Egypt. 

There are also some instances,—most of them of 
no very great importance—in which our Translators 
have mistaken the sense of the original. 

One of these mistakes is the constant substitution 
of the word “ Devils ” for “ Demons” (A amoved); 
m Acts ii. 47. 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 275 

the word Devil (Diabolos) being the designation of 
an individual , and never used, by the Sacred Writers, 
in the plural. 

Again, “ baptizing in the name of the Father/’ &c. 
ought to have been “ into” or “ to the name 
(see Acts xv. 17) the original word being not ev but 
els ; which conveys a very different sense. The Latin 
versions, which have “ in nomine ” instead of “ in 
nomen,” have probably given rise to the mistake. 

The expression (Acts ii.) of “ cloven tongues ” 
should have been “ flames [tongues] of fire distri¬ 
buted” (“ dispertitae,” Vulg.); since hia^ept^oiievai 
is neither the verb nor the tense which would have 
been used to express “ cloven,” (IkecrxKT/jLevcu). 

The expression (in 1 Tim. vi. 5) “ supposing 
that gain is godliness,” is manifestly an improper 
conversion of the original; which should have been 
rendered, “ regarding the profession of Christianity 
[godliness] as a source of emolument.” 

Again, the expression (in Phil. i. 5.) which is 
rendered “ fellowship in the Gospel,” means, as is 
manifest from the whole context, and also from the 
use of the preposition els, (not ev,) contribution 
towards the gospel. 

The use also of the definite Article was not well 
t 2 


27 6 


0 ^ Mode of [disc. I. 


understood at the time when our version was made. 
Thus we find ol \ol 7 toi, “ the rest,” rendered by 
“ others ;” ol ttoWoi, by “ many,” instead of “ the 
generality,”— “ the mass of mankind ;” to 7rvevpLa, 
by, “ that Spirit,” instead of “ the Spirit;” 
o Trpo^T'qs, by “ that prophet,” instead of “ the 
prophet;” to opos, “ a mountain,” instead of “ the 
mountain :” and (in 1 Tim. v. 11) “ the younger 
widows reject,” (as if he were to displace some who 
were actually holding office,) instead of “ younger 
widows decline;” i. e . do not admit such to office. 

In some places this makes no inconsiderable dif¬ 
ference in the sense : as for instance where Paul is 
made to address, apparently, (in Eph. i.) two classes 
of persons, “ the saints that are at Ephesus, and the 
faithful in Christ Jesus:” and again (in Tit. ii. 13) 
where he is made to speak of “ the great God, and 
our Saviour Jesus Christ,” as of two distinct Beings : 
though the Original, in each case, plainly shews (by 
the omission of the second Article) that he is apply¬ 
ing both titles to the same; viz. “ those in Ephesus 
who are saints and believers 11 in Christ Jesus;”— 
“ Our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” 

n These are the terms which—as well as “ elect,” “ brethren,” 
and some others—are employed to denote exactly what we 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 277 

Again, (in John xviii. 15,) we read that, “ Peter 
followed Jesus, and so did another disciple ” and 
it is a prevailing though groundless notion (quite at 
variance with what we read in Mark xiv. 50,) that 
this was John the apostle. But according to the 
Original it should be “ the other discipleviz. 
Judas Iscariot; the only one who had been men¬ 
tioned just before, (ver. 5.) And this makes the 
narrative perfectly clear and intelligible; for his 

mean by “ Christians.” This last title was never applied 
by the earliest Christians to themselves. The term (which 
was manifestly of Roman origin) occurs but thrice in the New 
Testament: and in each place, manifestly, as employed by those 
who were not Christians. 

This, by the way, would alone be a sufficient disproof of 
the notion that the New-Testament-writings were composed 
(from some vague floating traditions) in the second, third, or 
fourth century. Had this been so, the title “ Christians,” 
which was then in as common use as it is now, would un¬ 
doubtedly have been found in the New Testament in its 
present application. 

The Apostle probably chose to employ exclusively the titles 
belonging to God’s people of old; in order to point out the 
more strongly the comprehension of Jews and Gentiles, with 
equal privileges, in one church. 

When the Temple and City of Jerusalem had been destroyed, 
and the danger from Judaizing teachers nearly done away, this 
reason no longer existed. 


278 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 


being known to the High Priest, and having influ¬ 
ence to gain admittance for Peter, is just what we 
might have expected. 

In some places, again, though no one word is mis¬ 
translated, the exact, or the full meaning, of the 
Original, is not conveyed. Por instance (in 1 Cor. 
i. 27), the words “ are called,” which our translators 
supply, should have been “ were chosen as your 
callers —the “ instruments of your conversion 
which is the sense evidently required by the 
context. 

And again, Paul’s rebuke of Peter (Gal. ii. 14) 
would seem to imply that Peter was then living in 
non-observance of the Mosaic ordinances ; a suppo¬ 
sition which is quite at variance with the fact, and 
which moreover renders the whole passage unintel¬ 
ligible. The true sense of the passage undoubtedly 
is, “ If thou, though a Jew by nature, hast life 
(i. e. the Christian life) on the same terms as the 
Gentiles, and not by virtue of thy being a Jew, why 
dost thou urge the Gentiles to Judaize ?” This use 
of the word £5 is very frequent, especially in this 
very Epistle: (see cli. ii. 19, 20, and v. 25.) 

And Peter, in the council at Jerusalem, (Acts 
xv. 11,) which seems to have taken place immedi- 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 279 

ately after this transaction at Antioch, uses, in 
substance, the very argument just before urged 
upon himself by Paul. On comparing together the 
two passages, in the Original, there will appear a 
beautiful coincidence. 

In the latter passage—the speech of Peter—as well 
as in some others, the sense is obscured by not sup¬ 
plying the ellipsis which is manifestly in the Original. 
It should have been rendered “ Why tempt ye God 
by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples too 
burdensome for our fathers and ourselves? [when 
after all it is not through these ceremonial observ¬ 
ances] but through the grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, that we [the Jews] trust to obtain sal¬ 
vation, in the very same manner as they, [the 
Gentiles.]” 

So also the passage in 1 Cor. xv. 41, should have 
been rendered, “ There is one glory of the sun, and 
another glory of the moon, and another glory of the 
stars; nay, one star differeth from another star in 
glory.” 

The word “ nay,” or, in older English, “ yea,” 
has the force of “ [this is not all] for ;” or “ [not only 
so] but.” And accordingly dwd is frequently thus 
rendered, and very rightly, by our translators ; (see 


280 


On the Best Mode of [disc. I, 


1 Cor. iv. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 11, &c.) but the similar 
force of yap they have overlooked. 

Lastly, there are many instances in which words 
once very appropriate, have gradually slid away 
from their ancient meaning, so far as to convey to 
many readers an indistinct, or even an incorrect 
notion. For instance, when Paul says, “ I know 
nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified,’* 
the generality of readers never suspect the meaning 
to be, “ I am not conscious of any fault(viz. in 
the discharge of my ministerial duties) though that 
sense was undoubtedly what our translators meant 
to convey by the phrase; which is still so used in 
some provincial dialects. 

Again, the word “preach” is a notable instance; 
having so much slid from its original sense of pro¬ 
claiming as a herald, as to obscure the sense of every 
passage in which the preaching of the gospel,— 
(fcripvTTecv to evayye\iov,) literally, “ proclaiming the 
good tidings,” occurs. The sacred writers con¬ 
stantly preserve the distinction between “ preaching” 
and “ teaching—“ announcing,”—“ giving infor¬ 
mation of an event;” and giving instruction to 
believers. 0 And our translators have also, almost 
0 See Elem. of Log. Part iv. ch. ii. § 1. 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction . 281 

always, adhered to this distinction; though the 
word “ preach/’ having in great measure acquired, 
in their time, its secondary sense, there is one pas¬ 
sage in which they inadvertently so employ it. 
When the disciples were assembled at Troas, “ to 
break bread, Paul preached unto them,” and as 
Paul w T as long preaching , the young man Eutychus 
fell down from a window, and was taken up dead 
the word hiakeyo^evos should have been rendered 
“ discoursing.” To disciples , he did not in the strict 
sense, preach. So also it is not our business, in the 
strict sense, to “ preach the gospel,” except to any 
who, from their tender years, or from neglected edu¬ 
cation, have never had the glad tidings announced to 
them of God’s giving his Son for our salvation. 
Our ordinary occupation is not to preach (/ cnpyrreiv ) 
but (BiSdo-fcecv) to teach men how to understand 
the Scriptures, and to apply them to their lives. 

The word “ doctrine” again has come to signify 
at present the substance of what is taught, instead 
of (its original sense) the mode of teaching; which 
corresponds to BcBa^v, doctrine, and is, almost 
always, so employed by our translators. For in¬ 
stance, “The people were astonished at his doc¬ 
trine /’ meaning, not at the things which He taught, 


282 On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 

but at his mode of giving instruction; because “ He 
taught as one having authority, and not as the 
Scribes.” 

The last instance I shall notice is that of the 
words “ edify,” and “ edification;” which have so 
completely lost their literal signification in our 
tongue, that it would be reckoned even an impro¬ 
priety to use them in speaking of the building of a 
literal edifice; and thus the reader loses the force 
and significance of the language of the sacred 
writers, who are perpetually employing this figure, 
as their favourite illustration, if I may so speak, of 
the condition of Christians ; as forming, collectively, 
the Temple, succeeding that literal one on mount 
Sion ; the Temple in which the Lord dwells by His 
Holy Spirit; and as being, individually, “ living 
stones, builded up into an habitation for the 
Lord.”* 

I must warn you, in conclusion, that whenever, 
in the discharge of that most important duty of 
imparting scriptural instruction, you are led to sug¬ 
gest, for any of the reasons above alluded to, any 
rendering different from that of the Authorized 
Version, or even to allude to any of the other Ver- 


p See Hinds’s “ Three Temples.’ 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 283 

sions that are in use among thousands of our 
countrymen ; you may, not improbably, be assailed 
by violent clamours from ignorant and superstitious 
bigots, or from those who, though themselves know¬ 
ing better, wish to foster blind prejudices among 
the people, for fear of “ unsettling their minds.” 
There are even some who believe, or apparently wish 
the people to believe, that our Reformers, in their 
reference to Scripture , as the only infallible Standard, 
meant the present Authorized Version :—the Ver¬ 
sion, that is, which is authorized to be publicly read 
in Church:—a version which was not composed till 
long after the Articles were framed; and which, 
even now, is so far from being uniformly adhered 
to, even in our public service, that the Psalms in 
the Prayer Book, and the passages of Scripture 
cited in the Communion Service, are taken from an 
older translation. 

But, in truth, they had in view no Version at all, 
composed, as all versions are, by fallible man. They 
meant, that which alone is the unerring Standard,— 
the original works of the inspired Writers. This 
alone is, in strict propriety of speech, the Bible; 
what is commonly so called being, in reality, only 
a translation of the Bible. Our Authorized Ver- 


284 


On the Best Mode of [disc. i. 


sion, though presenting, I am convinced, on the 
whole, a faithful picture of the original, lays no 
claim to infallibility, but is itself to be tried by an 
appeal to the standard of the Original. 

But some who are well aware of this, yet deprecate 
enlightening the people on this point. They would 
fain keep at least the members of our own Church— 
of a Church that actually uses two different ver¬ 
sions—in ignorance of the fact, that there exist 
more than one, lest the unlearned should be ha¬ 
rassed with perplexing doubts, whether there is any 
part of what they read that can be relied on as of 
genuine divine authority. And there are even 
some who, while professing great zeal for the dif¬ 
fusion of scriptural knowledge, yet would prefer, 
when that is the alternative, leaving hundreds of 
thousands of their couutrymen to live and die in 
total ignorance of all Scripture, rather than that they 
should read any other than our Authorized Version ! 

In reality, the most satisfactory ground on which 
the unlearned can rely for the fidelity of any trans¬ 
lation,—nay, for the very existence of the original,;— 
is, the general agreement among translators ; r who 

r See the little Tract on Evidences, referred to above, Essay 
ii. § 3. 


285 


sect. 5.] conveying Scriptural Instruction. 

are so far from acting on a concerted plan, that 
they are not only independent, but often even hos¬ 
tile to each other: whence arises the certainty, that 
no one conld introduce either a spurious passage, 
or a false translation, without finding others eager 
to expose the imposture. 

If any suspicion do arise of the learned combining 
to impose on the unlearned, it must be, when a 
jealous dread is manifested of these latter being 
shaken in their faith by looking into, or even hear¬ 
ing of, any other translation than what is set 
before them. For “every one that doeth evil, 
hateth the light.” But it is not given to those who 
do not prize, for its own sake, truth, and fair open 
dealing, to perceive the ultimate inexpediency of all 
disingenuous arts and pious frauds. Honesty must 
be first followed for its own sake; and then our 
reward (not our motive) will be, to find it in the 
end the truest policy. 

The few hints I have here thrown out on impor¬ 
tant points, will be sufficient, I trust, to excite in 
your own minds a train of reflections, of which 
some may prove not unprofitable, by supplying 
either incitement, or useful suggestions, or needful 
cautions, in the momentous business you are 


286 


On the Best Mode , 8fc. [disc. i. 


engaged in, “ of building up your people in their 
most holy faith,” by opening, through divine aid, 
their understandings, that they may understand the 
Scriptures, which are “able to make them wise 
unto salvation.” 


NOTES. 


Note A, page 265. 

On Popular Christian Evidences. 

There is one circumstance which it is important not 
to overlook, as rendering an attention to the subject of 
popular evidences of Christianity more especially im¬ 
portant in these times of renewed discussion between 
Romanists and Protestants. It is not merely that every 
controversy is likely to draw an undue proportion of 
attention to the particular subjects it relates to, and to 
divert our thoughts from others not less important:—it 
is not merely that the minds of Christians of different 
denominations are in many ways injured by being drawn 
away from the points in which they agree , and fixed 
exclusively on those in which they differ: but over and 
above all this, there is an important circumstance par¬ 
ticularly connected with the disputes between Romanists 
and Protestants, and which is often untliought-of. It 
is, that in respect of the great question at issue between 
the members of the Church of Rome on the one hand, 



288 On Popular Christian Evidences. 

and all Protestants on the other, the advocates on 
either side may he perfectly sincere, without at all 
believing in the divine mission of Jesus Christ. 

Of course they are insincere in professing themselves 
Christians , and believers in the truth of the doctrines of 
their respective Churches : but what I am saying is, 
that they may be sincere believers in what they respec¬ 
tively profess relatively to the great question between the 
two parties. For, that question is, whether the eccle¬ 
siastical supremacy and religious system of the Church 
of Rome, be, or be not, legitimately derived from Christ 
and his Apostles , and agreeable to their design. Now 
it is evident that one who disbelieves the divine origin 
of the Christian religion, must yet admit that it exists — 
that it had an origin—that there was such a person as 
Jesus :—and further, that the religious system of the 
Church of Rome either is, or is not, at variance w r ith his 
design;—that the Popes either are, or are not, usurpers 
of the powers they claim to derive from his will. 

Some deists may think the question too insignificant 
to be worth an inquiry which of the parties is in the 
right: but that one of them must be in the right, is 
undeniable. And some deists probably have decided 
the question, one way or the other, as a mere matter of 
historical investigation; and have maintained, in perfect 
good faith, their own respective views of this question, 
without being one step the nearer to a belief in the 
divine origin of Christianity. 

The case may be illustrated by that of Islamism. 
There are, it is well known, two sects of Mahometans, 


/ 


On Popular Christian Evidences. 289 

the Sheeas and the Sunnees, differing on the question 
whether Mahomet designed Ali as his successor. This 
question, which has led to many fierce contests, and has 
probably heightened the national and political animosities 
of the Turks and the Persians, has doubtless been 
examined by some Christians who have paid attention 
to certain portions of oriental literature and history, 
and has perhaps been decided in their minds, without 
their having the smallest doubt of Mahomet’s being a 
false prophet. And however insignificant, or however 
difficult of solution, the question may be deemed, it 
evidently has a right and a wrong side. No one, 
whether Mahometan, Christian, or atheist, can doubt 
that there was such a person as Mahomet, and that he 
either did, or did not, intend that Ali should be his 
successor. 

Now [this is, so far, a parallel case to that of the main 
question between Roman-Catholics and Protestants. 
Besides all those who espouse the one side or the other, 
politically, — from zeal for the party they belong to, 
without any thought about the merits of the case,— 
besides these, there may be an indefinite number who 
sincerely believe in the legitimacy, or in the usurping 
character, of the Pope’s claims,—in the unchanged, or 
in the changed, character of Christ’s religion, as ex¬ 
hibited in the Romish Church,—who yet disbelieve, or 
have never troubled themselves to examine, the claims 
of Christ’s religion itself, to be from Heaven. 

I need hardly remark how peculiarly important, in 
such a state of things, must be, an attention to Christian 

u 


290 On Popular Christian Evidences. 

evidences: how dangerous to take for granted that men 
are Christians from their taking an active part (founded 
on a sincere and decided opinion as to the point at issue) 
in a controversy between Christians. 

I would also observe further, that these are not times 
in which it is advisable (if it ever is) to dwell—as 
some do—chiefly, or exclusively, on the beneficial effects 
of Christianity—the support and satisfaction it affords 
to individuals, and its usefulness to political society—as 
the sole or principal evidence of its truth that is to 
he laid before ordinary readers. These considerations 
furnish indeed a strong confirmation of his faith to one 
who is already not only a firm believer, but a prac- 
tically-sincere Christian. Such a one is alone able to 
perceive and estimate their force; and such a one, 
I may add, is alone able to set them forth, in the best 
way;—in conduct , rather than in words. This confir¬ 
mation is rather the reward of faith accompanied by 
obedience, than the foundation on which to build it. 

And moreover, it is a mistake to regard this branch 
of evidence as particularly simple and easy, to mankind 
in general. It requires no small acquaintance with 
distant countries and ages ; in order that we may in¬ 
stitute a comparison between the effects of Christianity 
and other systems. It requires also some powers of 
discrimination , to distinguish what are fairly to be 
regarded as the effects of any system, from the accidental 
accompaniments;—the plants springing from the seed 
sown by the husbandman, from the spontaneous pro¬ 
ducts of the soil:—the wars e. g. among Christians, on 


On Popular Christian Evidences. 


291 


religious grounds, from the tendency of the religion itself. 
And it requires moreover such a moral taste as the 
Gospel does not usually find, hut implant , in the human 
mind. 

But the sceptical and irreligious, though they may 
be bad judges of the alleged usefulness of Christianity, 
can perfectly well understand that this is just the con¬ 
sideration which would weigh with persons who did not 
themselves believe in the truth of Christianity, but 
thought it a convenient system for keeping the vulgar in 
subjection. Few readers are so entirely ignorant of the 
works of the ancient heathen as not to know that these 
maintained the national religions on the ground of their 
alleged usefulness-to society; though the more educated 
part of them would have been affronted at being even 
suspected by their philosophical friends of really be¬ 
lieving, themselves, the popular mythology. I do not 
say that they were right in thinking these superstitions 
useful: but that this is what they alleged , is an undeniable 
fact . And this is all that concerns the present question. 

I cannot but think therefore that we are more likely 
to create or confirm scepticism in ten, than to cure it in 
one, if, in advocating the cause of Christianity to the 
ordinary reader, we dwell exclusively or chiefly, on the 
topic of its beneficial effects: a topic which not only was 
urged (however unreasonably) on behalf of the Pagan 
religions, but may be urged in behalf of any religion by 
men who—like the heathen philosophers—believe not 
the truth of what they advocate, though perhaps sincere 
believers of its usefulness. 

u 2 


292 On Popular Christian Evidences. 

I would suggest the reservation of this topic for the 
close , rather than the opening, of any popular treatise on 
Christian evidences. There are other topics of inter¬ 
nal evidence a (to say nothing of the external) which are 
more calculated than this to arouse, in the outset, the 
attention of the careless, and to shake the confidence of 
the confirmed unbeliever. 


See Essay on the Omission of Creeds, &c. 1st Series. 


DISCOURSE II. 


JESUS DESPISED AS A NAZARENE. 

























































I 

























































DISCOURSE II. 


MATTHEW II. 22, 23. 

He turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he 
came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that 
it might he fulfilled which was spoken by the 
prophet , He shall he called a Nazarene. 

It has frequently been made a matter of remark 
respecting this passage, that the words recited by 
the Evangelist do not occur in any of the prophe¬ 
tical writings: and the question accordingly has 
been raised, what prophecy it is that he intends to 
refer to. Several commentators have given various 
opinions on the subject; but I shall mention only 
the one which alone appears to me at all probable; 
which is that Matthew had in view the prophecy of 



296 


Jesus despised 


[disc, ii 


Isaiah concerning the Christ, that He should be 
“ despised and rejected of men;” a prophecy 
which, though differing in expression, agrees very 
closely in sense with the words used by the Evan¬ 
gelist, For we find abundant proof in the other 
parts of the New Testament, that the people of 
Galilee, generally, and most particularly those of 
Nazareth, were held in great contempt by the rest 
of the Jews. To be “ called a Nazarene,” there¬ 
fore, and to be “ despised by men,’’may be considered 
as even in themselves nearly equivalent expressions: 
but the prophecy that this should be the case with 
Jesus was not only fulfilled, but was fulfilled in 
great measure by means of the very event which 
Matthew is relating. For the circumstance of 
Joseph and Mary settling at Nazareth, and Jesus 
accordingly being brought up there, was the occa¬ 
sion that He not only was literally called and consi¬ 
dered as a Nazarene, but also that He was on that 
very account regarded with prejudice and disdain by 
a large portion of his countrymen. Being usually 
designated, from the place of his residence, as 
“ Jesus of Nazareth,” it was taken for granted that 
He was a native of that city: a city from which 
there was no expectation that any prophet—much 


DISC, II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


297 


less the promised Messiah—should arise; and which 
was the last place that the Jews looked to as likely 
to produce even any eminent teacher. “ Can there 
any good thing come out of Nazareth ?” was 
accordingly the reply of Nathanael, when Philip 
declared his belief that He of whom Moses and 
the prophets had spoken, had been found in “ Jesus 
of Nazareth.” Again, when Nicodemus remon- 
strates a with the chief priests for condemning Jesus 
without a hearing, their answer is, “ Art thou also 
of Galilee ? search and look,” (i. e. in the prophe¬ 
cies) “ for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” So 
also it is related just above, that when some of his 
hearers said “ this is the prophet,”—“this is the 
Christ,” others replied—“ Shall Christ come out 
of Galilee ?” “ Hath not the Scripture said that 

Christ cometli of the seed of David, and out of 
the town of Bethlehem where David was ?” 

That He actually was born in Bethlehem, and of 
the lineage of David, was so far from being publicly 
made known among the Jews, that He was left to 
encounter the prejudice arising from its being sup¬ 
posed that He belonged to the most despised por¬ 
tion of the whole nation. 


8 John vii. 


298 


Jesus despised [disc. ii. 

The unbelieving Jews, accordingly, have always 
applied to the followers of Jesus the reproachful 
title of Nazarenes. Christians, of course, they 
could not call them; since that would have been to 
admit that “ Jesus was the Christwhich was, 
and is, the very point in dispute. But they em¬ 
ployed the term Nazarene to answer a double pur¬ 
pose : besides being according to their own notions 
a term of reproach, it served to excite a prejudice 
in the minds of the Homans also, by tending to 
confound the Christians with a certain party of 
Nazarenes, who taught the unlawfulness of paying 
tribute to the Roman Emperor, and endeavoured to 
excite their countrymen to insurrection. 11 

The Jews therefore knowing that their Roman 
masters cared not about their religion , endeavoured 
to represent Christ and his followers as politically 
dangerous, by confounding them with a party hostile 
to the Roman Government. Hence they urged, 
“ We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a 
mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the 
world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes :” c 

b See the mention of Judas of Galilee, Acts v. 37, and of 
the Galileans slain by Pilate, Luke xiii. 

c Acts xxiv. 5 . 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


299 


even as, before, they had accused Jesus Himself to 
Pilate, as “ perverting the nation, and forbidding to 
give tribute to Ccesar, saying that He Himself is 
Christ a King.” 

Thus, every way, and to all parties, was the name 
of Nazarene made the occasion of contempt, sus¬ 
picion, and hostility. 

What I have now been saying does not, you 
should observe, rest on any particular interpretation 
of the passage before us. Whether Matthew did 
or did not mean to refer to the particular prophecy 
of Isaiah, of this at least there is no doubt;—that 
the prophet does foretel that the Christ should be 
“ despised and rejected,” that this as well as the 
rest of his prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus—and 
also that his dwelling at Nazareth, and being thence 
considered as a Nazarene, did contribute greatly to 
the contempt and rejection of Him which actually 
took place. 

Now it is important to observe, in reference to 
these circumstances, that not only were no pre¬ 
cautions used to prevent these unfavourable preju¬ 
dices from operating as they did,—no care to guard 
against Jesus being considered as a Nazarene,—but 
it seems even to have been expressly designed that 


300 


Jesus despised 


[disc. ii. 


He should be so considered, and should enter on 
his ministry without any external advantages to re¬ 
commend Him to men’s notice. 

It may be collected, I think, from the sacred 
historians, that Joseph and Mary had designed to 
settle in Bethlehem, but that their design was over¬ 
ruled by the course of events. Their first coming 
thither indeed out of Galilee, was, as we learn from 
Luke’s history, a matter of necessity. But Jesus 
having been born there, in the city of his ancestor 
David, and with such extraordinary attendant cir¬ 
cumstances announcing Him to the Shepherds near 
Bethlehem, and to Simeon and Anna at Jerusalem, 
as the promised Messiah, it must have been natural 
that they should be disposed to take up their abode 
there permanently, and bring up the Holy Child in 
the very place where these circumstances would be 
known and remembered. We are told indeed by 
Luke, that “when they had performed all things 
which the law of Moses enjoined,” they returned 
home to their own city Nazareth. But this must 
have been necessary, supposing them to have de¬ 
signed, (as I have no doubt they did) to remove 
from it finally, and make Bethlehem their home. 
Having quitted Nazareth suddenly, and with a 


DISC. II.J 


as a Nazarene. 


301 


design of returning thither, it would be necessary 
to make arrangements for a permanent removal from 
it to a new abode. It must have been after a 
second arrival at Bethlehem, a year after, that they 
received that visit from the Magi or wise men, 
which is related by Matthew. 

This we may collect from the very circumstances 
recorded: 1st. from what appears to have been the 
age of Jesus at that time, who was probably in his 
second year; Herod's command being to slay all 
the “ children in Bethlehem from two years old and 
under," according to the time which he had “ dili¬ 
gently inquired" (accurately ascertained, as it might 
be more exactly rendered) “from the wise men." 
And we find this confirmed by the circumstance 
that Joseph and Mary fled in haste by night from 
Bethlehem into Egypt: whereas the departure from 
Judaea which Luke relates,—evidently quite different 
from this,—was a peaceable return to their oion city 
Nazareth. 

It seems therefore to have been an express design 
of Providence that they should not settle at Beth¬ 
lehem. And accordingly they were still prevented 
from doing so, even when, on Plerod’s death, they 
were recalled from Egypt into “ the Land of Israel 


302 


Jesus despised 


[disc. ii. 


that is the word Matthew employs, as including 
both Judaea and Galilee. The narrative seems to 
imply that there was still an inclination to settle in 
Judaea (i. e. no doubt, in Bethlehem), but that the 
fear of Archelaus, son of Herod, who reigned over 
Judaea, but not over Galilee, induced them to “ turn 
aside/’ (that is the very word Matthew employs,) 
and finally take up their abode in Galilee. 

We find here therefore every possible indication 
of a distinct providential design, overruling the 
plans formed by human agents, and insuring the 
residence of Jesus during his youth, among persons 
who were strangers to all the miraculous circum¬ 
stances attending his birth; who knew not, for the 
most part, but that He was a native of their city, 
and looked upon Him merely as an ordinary child, 
the son of a man in humble station. 

This view of the situation in which Jesus was 
thus providentially placed, becomes the more 
striking if we compare his early youth with that 
of John the Baptist. As they were brought up 
far apart, so the mode of their early life was no 
less contrasted. 

There are probably many persons whose habitual 
notions on several points of Scripture-history are 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


303 


more influenced than they themselves are aware, by 
the representations of painters. Of these, the most 
eminent in their own art, have in general, when 
they have undertaken to illustrate Scripture-history, 
—from labouring under a great ignorance of the 
subject,—done more to darken, confuse, and pervert 
it. They are too often blind leaders of the blind. 
Yet one is often, unconsciously, led astray by them, 
on account of their admirable powers as artists, 
and by the force of early association. A favourite 
subject with a great number of these is, what is 
usually termed a “ Holy Family,” in which the 
infant Jesus and John the Baptist are represented 
as companions in childhood: whereas they were 
brought up not only in different houses , but in 
different provinces; the one in Judaea, the other in 
Galilee. And while one was the reputed son of an 
artisan of not the highest class in a city of mean 
repute, the father of the other occupied one of 
the most respected stations at Jerusalem, that of 
Priest. 

But the most important point of difference was, 
that John and his parents continued to reside 
among those who had witnessed, or heard of, the 
extraordinary circumstances attending his birth, 


304 


Jesus despised [disc. ii. 

and who knew that he was destined to be “ called 
the Prophet of the Highest.” Looking therefore 
on him from his infancy upwards as one who was 
to appear in an extraordinary character, and seeing 
him leading the retired and austere life of one 
under the vow of the Nazarite, d they were hence 
prepared (a circumstance which is strangely left 
unnoticed by most writers) to listen to him as a 
preacher as soon as he began his ministry : and 
accordingly they flocked in multitudes to be bap¬ 
tized by him, though he did not himself perform 
any miracle, and though he professed to be no more 
than the precursor of the promised Messiah. 

Jesus, on the contrary, brought up among those 
who knew nothing of any extraordinary character 
belonging to him,—and not distinguished from his 
humble neighbours by any vow of abstinence, or 
other outward mark, was unnoticed by his country¬ 
men till pointed out to them by John the Baptist, 
who bore witness to the supernatural sign which 
had been displayed at his Baptism; and when He 
commenced his Ministry relied only on the attesta¬ 
tion of the miraculous works He displayed. “ If,” 
said He, “I do not the works of my Father, believe 
J Luke i. 15. 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


305 


me not: but if I do, though ye believe not me, 
believe the works.” These miracles, we should 
have expected according to our own notions, would 
have forced all men into an acknowledgment of his 
divine mission, who were but convinced of the 
reality of the facts. But the degree to which, in 
those days, the belief prevailed in the power of 
magicians to work miracles through their control 
over evil spirits, incredible as it is apt to appear to 
us, is a fact of which there can be no doubt 
whatever. The evangelists all agree in describing 
the opponents of Jesus as admitting his miraculous 
powers, but yet as so determined to reject Him, 
that they were driven to attribute those powers to 
the agency of Demons : “ He casteth out Demons 
[devils],” 6 they said, “ through Beelzebub, the chief 
of the Demons.” 

This, it may be said, is the account of Christian 
writers; but it is fully confirmed by the testimony 
of the unbelieving Jews themselves; who have 
among them a very ancient book f professing to 
give an account of Jesus of Nazareth; representing 

e Demons is the original word, which had better have been 
retained. 

f Toldoth Jeschu. 


X 


306 


[disc. II. 


Him as a deceiver, who performed great miracles 
by magical art. And it is remarkable, that in this 
book, one, and only one, of the alleged miracles 
is denied, the resurrection of Jesus Christ; so 
minutely does it agree in this respect, with our 
Sacred Writers, who describe the unbelieving Jews 
as denying the fact of Christ's resurrection, but 
admitting the other miracles, and ascribing them to 
the agency of evil spirits. The prevailing notion 
among the ancients seems to have been, that a 
magician's power, however great, lasted only for 
his life. The resurrection , therefore, of Jesus utterly 
overthrew, in the minds of those who were con¬ 
vinced of the fact, the supposition of his being a 
magician. 

How far the belief of the Jews in the present 
day agrees with the view taken by their ancestors, I 
cannot determine. The only one of them with 
whom I ever conversed on the subject, (he was a 
man of education,) distinctly gave me to understand 
that such was his belief. But at any rate it must 
have been their belief in early times, up to the 
days of Jesus Christ. For it is incredible that if 
his enemies, during his ministry among them, had 
denied the fact of his working miracles, their 


disc, ii.] as a Nazarene. 307 

descendants should afterwards, when He was re¬ 
moved from them, admit the miracles, and resort to 
the plea of magic arts. That would have been to 
reject the testimony of their own party, and to 
prefer that of the disciples, whom they persecuted; 
which is a complete moral impossibility. 

The account, therefore, which the Evangelists 
give of this matter is fully confirmed; viz. that the 
unbelieving Jews of our Lord’s time, acknowledged 
his miracles, and explained them as the work of 
magic. For if the unbelievers of those days had 
met his pretensions by a denial of the facts, that 
denial must have been transmitted to their descen¬ 
dants ; as is the case, in respect of that one miracle 
they did deny, that of the resurrection. 

And here I would observe, by the way, that cre¬ 
dulous as the Jewish people were at that time on 
the subject of magic, they would never have resorted 
to that solution if they could have raised even any 
doubt as to the facts. For as long as it was ad¬ 
mitted that He did display superhuman power, 
their explanation of this as the result of magical 
arts, only went to shew that He mightjpossibly not 
be sent from God, notwithstanding his miracles ; 
whereas on the other hand, to have detected Him 
x 2 


308 Jesus despised [disc. ii. 

in attempting any juggle or fraud, or in circulating 
false statements, would have been a strong argu¬ 
ment that He could not have been sent by God. 

Miracles then, we see, did not, even when fully 
acknowledged, force men into that acknowledg¬ 
ment of divine agency which we should at first 
sight have expected to follow. It appears to be a 
part of the scheme of divine providence that men 
never should be forced into the belief of the 
Christian revelation, by such overpowering evidence 
as shall compel the assent of the understanding in 
spite of all perversity of the will; such evidence as 
shall leave no room for the exercise of candour,— 
call for no diligent inquiry and examination,— 
afford no way of escape for those unwilling to 
admit it;—but, like the evidence of a geometrical 
demonstration, leave no distinction between the 
well-disposed and the ill-disposed. 

Unbelievers of the present day may say, and 
probably with truth,—that if a professed messenger 
from heaven were to perform sensible miracles before 
their eyes, they would not account for these by the 
hypothesis of Magic, but would receive the mes¬ 
sage. As it is, however, they can deny the Christian 
miracles without contradicting at least the evidence 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


309 


of their senses. The Jews in our Lord’s time, as 
we have seen, could not; they therefore acknow¬ 
ledged the miracles, and accounted for them accord¬ 
ing to the then prevailing notions of magic. 

Jesus of Nazareth had in that very title, as well 
as in the supposed obscurity of his parentage, a 
presumption raised against him. “ Is not this the 
carpenters son ?” “ Can there any good thing 

come out of Nazareth?” “Shall Christ come out 
of Galilee ?” These were the questions that were 
asked, and which mark the prevailing sentiments: 
and the conviction which his mighty works did 
produce, gradual and hesitating as it was, differed 
widely from what we should have expected. Some 
said, “ When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles 
than these which this man doth ?” 

But when He disappointed their expectations of 
a temporal Messiah raising their nation to liberty 
and glory,—when He rejected a temporal crown, 
and proclaimed a kingdom “ not of this world,” 
they were “ offended,” (as our translation expresses 
it) i. e. mortified, disgusted, and indignant; and 
resolving to disbelieve, changed the exulting shouts 
with which they had welcomed his entrance into 
Jerusalem into clamorous outcries for his crucifixion. 


310 


Jesus despised [disc. ii. 

Thus did the Saviour come “ unto his own, arid 
liis own received him not;” thus was He “ despised 
and rejected of menand tlius were the pro¬ 
phecies fulfilled that not only “ the Christ should 
suffer ,” but that the very circumstance of his being 
a sufferer should be interpreted as a proof of divine 
disfavour : “ We did esteem Him smitten, stricken 
of God , and afflicted; and we hid, as it were, our 
faces from him.” 

And are we, Christians of the present day, to 
regard all this with barren wonder at the perversity 
of the Jews, and at their superstitious credulity 
respecting magic ? Is nothing to be learned from 
their example,—no application to be made to our¬ 
selves and those around us ? Perhaps you may 
suppose that the only application is to be made to 
those of this age and this country, who are not 
Christians :—who equally with the Jews, though on 
different grounds, declare that they will have nothing 
to do with Jesus of Nazareth. 

But this is not so. Of the Jews, who were God’s 
favoured people of old, a large proportion were (as 
Paul tells us) “ Jews outwardly,” because they had 
been brought up in the observances of their law, 
and taught to hate and despise gentiles, and to 


disc, ii.] as a Nazarene. 311 

place their religion in national pride, and in strict 
attention to outward ceremonies; but neglected 
“ the weightier matters of the Law.” They were 
sensual or worldly-minded, and unprepared to sub¬ 
mit themselves with meekness to God’s guidance,— 
to examine evidence candidly,—and to receive with 
humble docility truths unacceptable, and revolting 
to their prejudices and inclinations. They con¬ 
sequently so far blinded themselves, that professing 
and believing that they adhered to the Law and the 
Prophets, they rejected the promised Messiah, and 
thought when they killed his disciples, that they 
were “ doing God service.” 

The same sort of characters, had they lived in 
this Age and Country, would probably have been 
brought up—as we have been,—professed Chris¬ 
tians, through the accidents of birth and parentage. 
But as “ he is not a Jew,”—so neither is he a 
Christian,—“who is one outwardly.” They would 
perhaps have gloried in the name of Christian—or 
of Catholic or Protestant, orthodox or evangelical; 
and perhaps too they would have attested their re¬ 
ligious zeal by their hatred and disdain of those of 
a different persuasion or a different party from their 
own. And as the Chief Priests and Pharisees in 


312 


Jesus despised 


[disc. ii. 


the council said with indignant contempt of the fol¬ 
lowers of Jesus, “ this people which knoweth not 
the Law are cursed/’ so they would perhaps have 
said in these days, “ this people who knoweth not 
the Gospel are cursed /’in each case claiming for 
their own party the right of determining finally 
what is the true sense of the Law, or of the Gospel. 
Such persons would have read the New Testament, 
as the unbelieving Jews continued to read the Old, 
with “the veil upon their hearts/’ not seeking can¬ 
didly and earnestly to learn what is the truth, and 
to apply what they learned to the improvement of 
the heart and life: they would, we may well sup¬ 
pose, have been as regular in the observances of 
the Christian worship as they were of the Jewish: 
but they would not have been, from their being 
merely born in a Christian country, more ready than 
in fact they were, to embrace heartily and practically 
the spirit of the Christian religion. 

In short, we may be sure that of the unbelieving 
Jews in our Lord’s time, there were many who 
were against Christianity, because they found 
Christianity against them;—because they found it 
opposed to those prejudices and passions,—to that 
moral corruption — which they could not bring 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


313 


themselves to strive against. And we may be no 
less sure that a large proportion of such characters 
will, in this age and country, be among the 
members of the visible Church, without being at 
all the less adverse to the true spirit of the Gospel 
from their not openly rejecting it. The same kind 
of persons who in former days would have regarded 
the name of Jesus of Nazareth with contempt or 
with abhorrence, these will, in the present day, be 
most of them enrolled among his nominal followers, 
but either disregard his religion in their heart, or 
corrupt and pervert the spirit of it into a conformity 
with their own dispositions. 

For we should remember that the unbelieving 
Jews of old did not intend to reject Christ: they 
intended only to reject Jesus of Nazareth, whom 
they would not believe to be the true Christ. Such 
a Messiah (or Christ) as they expected,—and as 
their descendants still expect,—coming from Heaven 
in clouds, and preceded by Elias in his fiery chariot, 
was regarded by them with the highest veneration. 
But when the true Messiah did come, they did not 
recognise Him as such; and rejected Him, because 
He did not agree with their expectations. And if 
He were now to come again on earth among those 


314 


[disc. II. 


who consider themselves as his followers, do you 
not suppose that many of them would in like 
manner reject Him? Not that they would reject 
Him as the true Jesus , whose name they have been 
used to reverence ; (any more than the Jews mean 
to reject Him as Christ) but there are many I fear 
who would not recognise Him,—would not believe 
that He was the Jesus they venerated; because He 
would be so unlike their expectations;—so different 
in spirit from themselves. 

Whether this has hitherto been the case with any 
of us, it is for each of us to inquire most carefully 
for himself. For Christ has declared that He will 
own no such followers : “ Not every one that saith 
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom 
of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in Heavenand again He assures us that 
many professed disciples, even though they have 
preached, — nay and wrought miracles, — in his 
name, will be rejected by Him at the last day: 
“ Verily I say unto you, I know you not: depart 
from me all ye workers of iniquity.” We see then 
that Jesus reckons along with those who openly 
despised and rejected Him, such as do not in spirit 
and in truth obey his Gospel,—such as “ professing 


DISC. II.] 


as a Nazarene. 


315 


to know God, in their works deny Him;” having “a 
form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” 

Since then Christianity does not consist in a mere 
name, or in a mere assent to the truth of certain 
propositions, without a subjection of the will, and a 
conformity of life, to Christ, recollect that if you do 
not seek earnestly thus to obey and serve Him, you 
will have incurred the guilt of rejecting Jesus of 
Nazareth as completely as the unbelieving Jews of 
old. You will have been so far worse than they, 
that you will have led others to “ despise and reject 
Him.” You may do, as professed followers of 
Jesus, what no open enemies can do; by raising 
a prejudice against the religion as useless, or con¬ 
temptible, or odious, and thus acting as a traitor to 
your Master. 

“ Think not to say within yourselves,” said John 

the Baptist, “we are Abraham’s children :. 

bring forth fruits meet for repentance.” “ Think 
not”—he would have said in these days,—“to 
say within yourselves, we are God’s People—we 
are Christians; but strive to bring forth the fruits 
of the Spirit.” And let each recurrence of this 
festival g find you more and more “ grown in 
e This Discourse was delivered on Christmas-day. 



316 Jesus despised as a Nazarene. [disc. ii. 

grace,”—more truly followers of the steps of Jesus 
of Nazareth—than the last;—more prepared to 
stand before his judgment-seat at the last day; 
that “ when Christ, which is our life, shall appear, 
ye also may appear with Him in glory,” and be 
admitted to dwell in his presence for ever. 


DISCOURSE III. 


ON 

THE TREASON 


OF JUDAS ISCARIOT. 


































































































































TO THE 


CANDIDATES ORDAINED AT CHRIST CHURCH, 

DUBLIN, 

ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1837, 

OT)ts discourse, 

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED AT THEIR REQUEST, 

IS INSCRIBED, 

BY 

THEIR SINCERE FRIEND AND FELLOW-LABOURER, 


THE AUTHOR. 




































































































DISCOURSE III. 


Matthew xviii. 7. 

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it 
must needs be that offences come; hit woe unto 
that man by whom the offence cometh ! 

When the Divine Messenger—the anointed Saviour, 
so long and anxiously expected by the Jews, and so 
earnestly looked for at that particular time—did 
actually appear, “ He came unto his own, and his 
own received Him not“He was despised and 
rejected ” by the greater part of his own People, 
because He was not such as to correspond to their 
expectations and hopes. “ They hid as it were 
their face from Him,” and denied his claim ; being, 
as the New-Testament writers usually express it, 
“ offended ” in Him. 

The word which is translated “ offence ” or 


Y 



322 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 

“ stumbling-block/’ and which has been since 
transferred into our own language, being called 
“ scandal,” was used to express metaphorically 
any thing that impedes a man’s progress in the 
right course, and causes him to stumble or to turn 
aside. And of this description were many cir¬ 
cumstances in our Lord’s history and doctrine; 
particularly his supposed humble birth a and obscure 
station, and the mean condition of his first fol¬ 
lowers ; his renouncement of worldly power; still 
more, his submission to persecution and to an igno¬ 
minious death; and most of all, the admission of 
the despised Gentiles to an equal share in the 
kingdom of heaven. 

He found it needful, therefore, again and again 
to prepare the minds of his disciples for this—to 
them unexpected—difficulty and opposition. It 

a See note to Sermon on “the Shepherds at Bethlehem,” 
p. 146. 

It seems to have been the design (over-ruled by the course 
of events which Providence brought about) of Mary and 
Joseph to bring up the Holy Child at his real birth-place, 
where the signs had taken place and were known, that would 
have led men (as seems to have been the case with John the 
Baptist) to fix their attention and expectations on Him as He 
grew up. See the preceding Discourse. 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


323 


was a severe trial, not only of their fortitude , but 
also of their faith. I mean, that they were likely 
not only to feel, in common with every man, a 
natural dread of encountering opposition and per¬ 
secution, but also to have doubts engendered in 
their minds (through this very circumstance) of the 
goodness of their cause. Brought up, as Jews, in 
the notion that temporal blessings awaited the 
righteous, and that temporal afflictions were a mark 
of the divine disfavour, b (a notion which still clings 
to the minds of many Christians, though they have 
not the smallest ground for it,) they were likely— 
over and above their natural reluctance to make 
great sacrifices, and their dread of undergoing 
severe sufferings, to doubt whether He who was 
exposed, together with his followers, to such afflic¬ 
tion and degradation, could be indeed God’s “ right¬ 
eous servant.” They were tempted, in short, to 
regard Him “ as one stricken , smitten of God , and 
afflicted,” and thence (as had been prophesied) 
to “ hide their face from Him.” Hence, his 
assiduous preparation of them for this. He warns 
them that they should “ be hated of all men for his 
name’s sake;” and that they must be prepared 
b See “ Discourse on National Blessings and Judgments.” 

Y 2 


324 On the Treason of [disc. hi. 

“ to take up their cross and follow Him.” He bids 
them “ rejoice ” in the persecution they would have 
to endure in his cause ; and he sums up the answer 
to the inquiry John the Baptist had made, whether 
He indeed were the promised Messiah, by saying, 
“ Blessed is he whosoever shall not he offended 
in me.” 

Especially He warns them, more than once— 
and, for the present, in vain—of that great source 
of offence, his public rejection and ignominious 
death; which operated not so much in striking 
personal terror into those disposed to believe in 
Him, as in disappointing their hopes, and thus, as 
I have already said, shaking their confidence. All 
this. He warns them, must take place, according to 
divine appointment, as it had been foretold in the 
Scriptures ; but then He warns them also, that 
this makes no difference as to the guilt of the 
agents who “ fulfilled these prophecies in con¬ 
demning Him.” That a crime will certainly be 
perpetrated, and is clearly foreseen by one who has 
prophetic power, makes no difference in the guilt 
of the criminal. His act is foreseen, but not com¬ 
manded ; his evil disposition is known, but not 
thereby justified; and though it may not depend on 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


325 


each of us, whether this or that event shall take 
place,, it does depend on us whether we shall have a 
share in it. It may be out of our power to prevent 
an evil; but it is in our power to join in producing 
it, or to stand neuter, or to oppose it; and we 
shall each be responsible accordingly; not for the 
eve?it , but for our share in it: “ It must needs 0 be 
that offences come, but woe unto that man by whom 
they come/’ 


* I will take the liberty of here inserting from a volume 
already published, a note which is equally applicable to the 
present subject: “The last clause of our 17th Article seems 
to have been added in reference to such as might attempt 
to justify their own conduct, however immoral, by a reference 
to the decrees of Providence, on the plea that whatever takes 
place must be conformable to the divine will. To * do the 
will of our Heavenly Father,’ must mean, to do what He, by 
the light of Revelation or of Reason, announces as required 
of us : otherwise, all men alike, whether virtuous or wicked, 
would be equally doers of his will. And where his will is 
not thus announced to us, our duty often leads us even to 
act in opposition to it. For every one would say that a child, 
for instance, does his duty, in tending the parent on a bed of 
sickness, and using all means for his restoration ; though the 
event may prove it to have been the will of God that his 
parent should die. Pilate, on the other hand, was, in a dif¬ 
ferent sense, fulfilling the will of God, while acting against 
the dictates of conscience. And we should remember that the 


326 


On the Treason of [disc. iii. 


It is probable that our Lord, in saying these 
words, alluded especially to that which (as I have 
remarked) was the great and most important stum¬ 
bling-block—the offence of the cross —the shock 
produced in the minds of the people by his being 
betrayed into the hands of those who put Him to 
an ignominious death. d When, accordingly, the 

prevalence of the Mahometan religion in many extensive 
countries that were once Christian, is, in this sense, the will 
of God .”—Charges and other Tracts, p. 438. 

d “In one respect it is impossible, now, to conceive the 
extent to which the apostles of the crucified Jesus shocked all 
the feelings of mankind. The public establishment of Chris¬ 
tianity, the adoration of ages, the reverence of nations, has 
thrown around the cross of Christ an indelible and inalienable 
sanctity. No effort of the imagination can dissipate the illu¬ 
sion of dignity which has gathered round it; it has been so 
long dissevered from all its coarse and humiliating associations, 
that it cannot be cast back and desecrated into its state of 
opprobrium and contempt. To the most daring unbeliever 
among ourselves, it is the symbol—the absurd and irrational, 
he may conceive, but still the ancient and venerable symbol— 
of a powerful and influential religion. What was it to the 
Jew and to the heathen? The basest, the most degrading 
punishment of the lowest criminal! the proverbial terror of 
the wretched slave ! It was to them, what the most despicable 
and revolting instrument of public execution is to us. Yet to 
the cross of Christ, men turned from deities in which were em¬ 
bodied every attribute of strength, power and dignity ; in an 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot . 


327 


time was come, He again warns the disciples of the 
trial that awaited them, and foretells their weakness: 
“ All ye will be offended because of me this night 
and Pie again denounces a woe against him who 
should expose them to that peril—the traitor who 
should occasion that offence : “ The Son of Man, 
indeed, goeth, as it is written of Plim; but woe 
unto that man by whom He is betrayed: it had 
been good for that man if he had not been born.” 

There is no portion of Scripture-history more 
familiar to the minds of those at all conversant with 
the Scriptures, than this, relative to the betrayal of 
Jesus, and all the circumstances connected with it; 
but there are few parts probably which Christian 
readers in general are less apt to apply to their own 
use. It is seldom, I conceive, that any one delibe¬ 
rately sets himself to try to profit and take warning 
from the example of Judas; or conceives it possible 
for himself to fall into any transgression at all 
like his. 

incredibly short space of time, multitudes gave up the splen¬ 
dour, the pride, and the power of paganism, to adore a Being 
who was thus humiliated beneath the meanest of mankind, 
who had become, according to the literal interpretation of the 
prophecy, a very scorn of men , and an outcast of the peopleI 
—Milmmis Bampton Lectures , p. 279. 


328 


On the Treason of 


[disc. iit. 


No one, of course, can , in these days, be tempted 
to betray Jesus Christ in bodily person into the 
hands of murderers. And,—universally,—the 
cases recorded in all history, sacred and profane, 
are commonly contemplated without profit to the 
reader that regards them with barren wonder or 
curiosity, instead of anxious self-examination; be¬ 
cause the temptations to men in different ages and 
countries are seldom precisely the same in all the 
outward circumstances; though in the main and in 
substance they completely correspond.® Satan does 
not appear again and again in the same shape; but 
is “ transformed,” we are told, “ into an angel of 
light,” and is ready, as soon as one disguise is seen 
through, to assume another, for the delusion of 
those who may have cast off self-mistrust, and lulled 
themselves into a false security. Even a brute- 
animal,—a beast of prey,—has more sagacity than 
to lurk always in the same spot of the same thicket, 
from whence to spring upon its victims. Much 
less can we suppose that our subtle adversary, who 
“as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he 
may devour,” will always present the same temp¬ 
tation again and again in the same shape. 

e See “ Essays on Errors of Romanism Introduction. 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


329 


It is for us to study the examples supplied us by 
history, and especially by Scripture-history, with a 
view to our own benefit in the application to our¬ 
selves ; looking out, not for the points of difference 
only from our own case, but for the points of agree¬ 
ment also —of substantial agreement, under out¬ 
ward differences ; and calling in the aid of a vigilant 
conscience to perform the office of the prophet 
Nathan, when he startled the self-deceived king, by 
exclaiming, “ Thou art the man !” 

In contemplating then, for an instructive purpose, 
the case of Judas Iscariot, you should first remark 
that there is no reason for concluding, as unreflect¬ 
ing readers often do, that he was influenced solely 
by the paltry bribe of thirty pieces of silver f (a far 
less sum, probably, than he might in a short time 

f Probably equal, in silver, to about sixty shillings ; and, 
in value, to perhaps about twice that sum in the present day. 

If we suppose (with some of the best commentators), 
Judas’s views to have been such as here described, his accept¬ 
ance of the bribe is easily accounted for. He must, of course, 
have represented himself, in his conference with the chief 
priests, as hostile to his Master. His acceptance of money 
from them (besides the incidental gratification to a covetous 
mind) must have been the most effectual way of blinding them 
to his real design. 


330 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 


embezzle from the bag of which he was the keeper) 
to betray his Master, and to betray Him designedly 
to death. That Jesus possessed miraculous powers, 
Judas must have well known. Indeed he must, there 
can be no doubt, have himself, in common with 
the other Apostles, wrought miracles in his Master’s 
name. And it is likely that, if he believed Him to 
be the promised Messiah, who was about to establish 
a splendid and powerful kingdom (an expectation 
which it is plain was entertained by all the Apostles/) 
he must have expected that his Master, on being ar¬ 
rested and brought before the Jewish rulers, would 
be driven to assert his claim, by delivering Himself 
miraculously from the power of his enemies ; and 
would at once accept the temporal kingdom which 
the people were already eager (and would then have 
been doubly eager h ) to offer Him. That if our 

g See Acts i. 6. Luke xxii. 24—30 ; and Matt. xx. 21—23. 

h “It seems to be not improbable, that Judas, when he 
betrayed Christ, might have imagined, as the disciples did, 
and as the Jews thought of their Messias, that He would not 
have died, but either would have conveyed himself out of the 
soldiers’ hands, as He did from the multitude, when they 
sought to stone Him, or cast him down a precipice; or by 
some other miraculous way, would have preserved himself: 
and of this opinion, saith Theophylact, on ver. 5, were some 
of the Fathers .”—Whitby s Annotations on St. Matthew. 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


331 


Lord had done this. He would have been received 
with enthusiastic welcome, as the nation’s deliverer 
from Roman bondage, there can be no doubt; since 
He would thus have fulfilled the fondly-cherished 
hopes of the multitudes who had just before brought 
Him in triumphant procession into Jerusalem. And 
it was most natural for Judas to expect that Jesus 
would so conduct himself, if delivered up to his 
enemies. As for his voluntarily submitting to stripes 
and indignities, and to a disgraceful death, when it 
was in his power to call in to his aid “ more than 
twelve legions of angels,” no such thought seems 
ever to have occurred to the mind of Judas, any 
more than it did to the other Apostles. Indeed 
we are expressly told that when Jesus informed 
them of this beforehand, in plain terms, 1 saying, 
“ All things that are written by the prophets con¬ 
cerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished; for 

It has not been generally noticed that our Lord’s “ hiding 
himself, and passing through the midst” of his enemies, on 
those two occasions, must have been miraculous. And it is 
also worthy of notice, that it was from a lawless •multitude 
He thus saved Himself : which no one would scruple to do. 
But the seizure and condemnation to which He chose to sub¬ 
mit, were, however unjust, the acts of legal Authorities. 

1 Luke xviii. 31. 


332 On the Treason of [disc. hi. 

He shall be delivered unto the Gentiles., and shall 
be mocked and spitefully entreated and spitted on: 
and they shall scourge Him and put Him to death: 
and the third day He shall rise again,” .... “ they 
understood not the saying, and it was hid from them.” 
His language, indeed, was explicit enough, and free 
from all parable or figure; but they were so per¬ 
suaded of the utter impossibility of its being lite¬ 
rally true, that they concluded at once there must 
be some hidden meaning under it, which they could 
not conjecture. 

Partaking then in these notions, it was natural 
for an ambitious and worldly man like Judas Is¬ 
cariot, to expect that by putting his Master into the 
hands of his enemies, he should force Him to make 
such a display of power, as would at once lead to 
his being triumphantly seated on the throne of 
David, as a great and powerful prince. And he 
probably expected that he, Judas, should be both 
pardoned and nobly rewarded, for having thus been 
the means, though in an unauthorized way, of rais¬ 
ing his Master to that earthly splendour and do¬ 
minion, which, to worldly men, is the greatest object 
of desire. 

The same seems to have been the feeling of the 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


333 


soldiers who accompanied Judas. They offered at 
first no violence ; but retired “ backwards, and fell 
to the ground.” It is, I believe, by many, taken 
for granted, that they were miraculously awe-struck. 
It may have been so: but no such thing is stated 
by the sacred historian; nor do his words neces¬ 
sarily imply it. It seems at least as likely that they 
prostrated themselves to do Him homage as king, 
conceiving Him ready to accept the kingdom. 

Viewed in this light, there seems nothing un¬ 
accountable in Judas’s conduct. His sordid and 
covetous character does not at all imply that 
ambition might not be conjoined with avarice in 
his heart. And destitute as he was of the true 
“ wisdom that is from above,” there is nothing to 
warrant the notion that he was deficient in worldly 
cunning. His calculations accordingly would have 
been by no means unreasonable, supposing Jesus to 
have been (as Judas, judging from himself, doubtless 
supposed Him to be) a person as full of worldly 
ambition as the far greater part are, of those whom 
the world designates as great men. 

Julian, commonly known as “ the Apostate,” was 
forced by the mutinous soldiery, who were revolting 
against Constantius, to accept the empire, under 


334 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 


the threat of becoming their victim if he refused it. 
Whether his reluctance was sincere or feigned, they 
probably anticipated his acceptance of the crown 
thus pressed upon him. Nearly the same was the 
case with Galba. Sextus Pompey is recorded to 
have rebuked his servant Menas, who offered to put 
him in possession of the empire, by the treacherous 
seizure of the triumvirs, for not having, unknown 
to him, performed the service which, when proposed 
to him, he felt bound to reject. 

“Ah, this thou shouldst have done 
And not have spoke on’t * * * * 

being done unknown 

I should have found it afterwards well done.” 

Shakspeare. Antony and Cleopatra. 

No one indeed who has but a tolerable acquaint¬ 
ance with human nature can doubt that many an 
ambitious man is glad to be spared the responsibility 
of spontaneously grasping at the empire which he 
would willingly find forced upon him. 

Nor was Iscariot distinguished from the other 
apostles by the circumstance of his having no 
expectation or notion of a “kingdom not of this 
world.” They were all equally in the dark on this 
point; and remained so, till Jesus Himself opened 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


335 


their understanding after his resurrection : perhaps 
indeed, even till the day of Pentecost. k “We 
trusted,” said they, “ that it had been He which 
should have redeemed Israel.” And He rebukes 
them for being “ slow of heart to believe all that 
the prophets have spoken : ought not [the] Christ 
to have suffered these things, and to enter into his 
glory ? ” But the difference between Iscariot and 

k The extreme difficulty, to the apostles aud other Jews, 
believers and unbelievers, in comprehending the notion of a 
kingdom that was to be (unlike the Mosaic Dispensation,) 
“not of this world,” is often a matter of wonder and excla¬ 
mation to men who not only have before their eyes, but even 
themselves exhibit, a phenomenon far more wonderful. I mean, 
that of Christians, who have received the religion of Jesus of 
Nazareth, and have, in words, acknowledged his kingdom to 
be not of this world, and have before them his precepts and 
practice, and those of his apostles, and also the warning example 
of the unbelieving Jews; and yet still strive to make Christ’s 
kingdom “one of this world;” by claiming for the civil 
government in a Christian country, the right of determining 
what shall be the religion of the subjects, and of repressing 
false doctrine by secular penalties; or who seek at least to 
monopolize for Christians holding the true faith, civil rights 
and offices, and to reduce all others to a state of helotism or 
half-citizenship. 

Let such persons consider whether there is not good reason 
for regarding Judas Iscariot as the founder of their system. 
See Essay i. on the “ Kingdom of Christ.” 


33 6 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 

his fellow-apostles was, that though all had the same 
expectations and conjectures, he dared to act on his 
conjectures, departing from the plain course of his 
known duty, to follow the calculations of his worldly 
wisdom, and the schemes of his worldly ambition ; 
while they piously submitted to their Master's 
guidance, even when they “ understood not the 
things that He said unto them; ” and patiently 
waited for such explanations as He should afford, 
without presuming to adopt any crooked policy 
of their own, to bring about what they desired. 
Ignorant of his designs, they obeyed Him with a 
resignation which was even the more commendable 
from that very ignorance; and even when over¬ 
powered with dismay and despondency, and in that 
respect wanting faith , they were still not wanting 
in loyalty. They failed in confident trust , but they 
failed not in their fidelity. 

One of the many additional confirmations that 
might be given, if needful, of the above account, 
is, that Judas was overwhelmed with remorse and 
horror, not, on beholding his Master expiring on the 
cross, but “ when he saw that He was condemned .” 
As soon as He perceived that Jesus intended to 
submit, voluntarily, to the cruelty of his enemies. 


Judas Iscariot. 


337 


DISC. III.] 

without exerting his miraculous powers to free 
Himself, then it should seem that the prophecies 
of the Old Testament, and of Jesus Himself, flashed 
on his mind in their true sense, and in all their 
force. He was probably the very first person who 
understood clearly, and as if the words were branded 
on his heart, that “ the Christ should suffer/’ and 
that while “ the Son of Man was to go, as it was 
written,” there was a “ woe to that man by whom 
He was betrayed.” 1 

I have dwelt on this case,—this most remarkable 
occasion of offence,—as peculiarly illustrating the 
precept of our Lord in my text; and as being, I 
conceive, more especially in his mind when He 
delivered that precept: “Woe unto the world 
because of offences.” That great [“ offence ”] 
stumbling-block, which caused his chief disciples 
for a time to fall, He afterwards particularizes; 
“All ye will be offended because of me this night:” 
“ The Son of Man goeth as it is determined, but 
woe unto that man by whom lie is betrayed; good 
were it for that man had he never been born.” 

We are all of us, my Christian brethren, both 
clergy and laity, professed disciples of Christ, no 
1 See Note A at the end. 


z 


338 


On the Treason of 


[disc. hi. 


less than those who accompanied Him in bodily 
person on earth; and if we expect not to meet with 
temptations,—differing indeed in outward shape, 
but substantially the same with theirs,—we shall 
fail, through false security. We have indeed this 
advantage over those early disciples; we have the 
benefit of their example before us, as an instruction 
and a warning. It may be said of them, as the 
apostle Paul said of the Israelites of old, “ these 
things happened unto them for examples; and they 
are written for our admonition: . . . . wherefore, 
let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest 
he fall.” m 

But this benefit may be lost to us, and will serve 
but to aggravate our condemnation, if we neglect 
to apply to ourselves what we read. Duties, and 
trials, and temptations, belong to Christians of all 
times alike; and all alike therefore have need of 
vigilance. “ Lord, speakest Thou this parable unto 
us, or even unto all?” asked one apostle, when 
Jesus had been inculcating the importance of such 
vigilance : after still further enforcing his admonition, 
he winds it up by adding, “ What I say unto you, I 
say unto all, watch.” 

m 1 Cor. x. 



disc, hi.] Judas Iscariot. 339 

Botli the clergy and the Christian laity are often 
exposed to the danger either of occasioning an 
“ offence,” (in the Scriptural sense of the word,) 
i. e. causing others to fall, and turning them aside 
from the path of their Christian duty, or, of receiving 
an offence, i. e . being themselves turned aside, 
through some obstacle or temptation that has been 
thrown in their way by others. But the former of 
these dangers is to be guarded against with double 
vigilance by Christian ministers , because it rests 
with them to do more good or more evil, in this 
way, than, generally speaking, any others are likely 
to do. n Christian ministers are more emphatically 
the “ salt of the earth; and if the salt have lost its 
savour, wherewith shall it be salted ?” 

But occasions will often occur when both the clergy 
and laity may be in danger of putting a stumbling- 
block even in the way of each other. For example, 
one of the greatest dangers to which a minister can 
be exposed is one to which his congregation may 
greatly contribute ; and it may prove the means of 
their mutually misleading one another : I mean, 
the desire of popularity, and (what is to some minds 

n “ Beware that neither you yourselves offend, nor he occa¬ 
sion that others offend .”—Service for Ordering of Priests. 
z 2 


340 On tlte Treason of [disc. ixr. 

much stronger) the dread of obloquy. As a man , 
every one must feel some wish for the good opinion 
of his fellow r -men, and more especially of those 
among whom he lives; and as a minister of the 
Gospel, he cannot but desire, for the Gospel’s sake, 
that his ministry may be acceptable to his people. 
He is always in danger therefore of being led to 
court their applause, and by little and little to make 
their judgment his standard—their approval his 
object;—to consult their tastes and inclinations, 
and to substitute the means for the end, by gradually 
accommodating the Gospel to them, instead of, 
them, to the Gospel. And this usually takes place 
by such insensible degrees, that he is not himself 
conscious of “ loving the praise of men more than 
the praise of God for he will seem to himself to be 
seeking the praise of God, and inculcating divine 
truth. His own natural self-partiality will tell him 
this ; and the voices of those around him will echo it. 
It is a hard matter to defend a fortress when the 
assailants from without are in league with a part 
of the garrison. 

The difficulty of the Christian minister’s position 
is greatly increased by his having to steer his 
course between two opposite dangers; for if you 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot, 


341 


cause any unnecessary disgust—if you fail to make 
Gospel-truth as acceptable as the truth , and the 
whole truth, can be made—you are occasioning 
offence in another way. And it is very possible 
to fall into both these errors at once *—to flatter 
one part of your congregation, and disgust another; 
to humour the taste and prejudices, and spare the 
besetting sins, of one party, who in return will load 
you with their applause; while in an opposite party 
you may be creating a distaste for much that is 
really true, by your manner of setting it forth. 

Neither human applause nor human censure is 
to be taken as the test of truth. He who should 
satisfy himself either with being popular or with 
being unpopular, would equally be taking Man’s 
judgment for his standard. But either the one or 
the other should set us upon careful self-examina¬ 
tion. I would say to the Christian minister, If you 
find yourself greatly admired and liked, or greatly 
disapproved by your people; or still more, if you 
find both—that is, if you find that you have divided 
them into two parties, of loud applauders and vehe¬ 
ment censurers,—do not indeed at once condemn 
yourself, but suspect yourself; and examine afresh, 
whether you may not have made some sacrifice of 


342 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 


divine truth to popular favour, or set forth some 
divine truth in such a manner as to create needless 
disgust. 

And, to the People again, I would say, When you 
find yourself greatly admiring, or greatly disliking, 
some minister, suspect yourself; and examine care¬ 
fully whether you have merely received the gratifi¬ 
cation of eloquence, or have had your prejudices 
flattered, or have heard something that you think 
more applicable to your neighbours than yourself, 
—or whether, on the contrary, you have been so 
instructed, or admonished, or reproved, as to be 
likely to be the better for what you have heard. 
And again; examine candidly whether something 
you may have disliked, is disliked as not being 
agreeable to God’s word and to sound reason, or, 
as not agreeable to your practice or inclination; 
and for that very reason, the more needful to be 
attended to and laid to heart by you. 

Though to many persons what is called popularity 
and unpopularity—public admiration and obloquy 
—present the greatest and most perilous stumbling- 
block, there are others who are much more tried 
by a somewhat similar temptation from their own 
intimate associates, their private friends, and near 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot . 


843 


relations. When tempted to make some sacrifice 
of principle in conformity with the feelings, and 
wishes, and interests, or the prejudices and party- 
views, of those whom perhaps you love, and look 
up to, and live with, and when the alternative is to 
pain and mortify those you love, and incur the 
.censure of those you have been used to venerate, 
and perhaps to be shunned or persecuted by those 
you have been used to associate with,—when you 
have occasion to call to mind our Lord’s warnings, 
“ that a man’s foes shall be they of his own house¬ 
hold,” and “ whoso lovetli father or mother more 
than me, is not worthy of me”—then will you 
perhaps feel, that public favour or disfavour—the 
approbation or censure of the world abroad—con¬ 
stitute a far less grievous trial than this which 
comes home at once to all your inmost private 
feelings, and social and domestic life. 

But this last-described trial is far from being the 
most painful of all, when it happens that those 
whose regard you are called on to forfeit, and 
perhaps to incur their enmity, are persons of a 
decidedly worldly and irreligious, or carelessly- 
religious, character : for then it will appear at once, 
to yourself and to others, that it is in your Master’s 


344 


On the Treason of [disc. iii. 


cause you are suffering. This indeed is often even 
too readily taken for granted; I mean, that the 
disfavour which a religious man may meet with 
from the irreligious, which may sometimes be in 
part due to some want of judgment or want of 
temper in him, is often too hastily set down as 
persecution for righteousness’ sake . 0 But the 
severely painful trial is, when those of your friends 
and associates whose displeasure you are called on 
to incur, by adhering to what your conscience tells 
you is right—when these chance to be persons who 


0 “ We are bound to preach all the counsel of God to all 
men; but we shall not be blameless if we do this as if men 
were what they all ought to be : we must look to what they 
can bear; and preach and try to influence them in the way 
they can best bear it : we must search for arguments that will 
convince them, and not be content with wdiat may be most 
convincing to ourselves : we must condescend to seek access 
to their hearts, as well as their understanding, by whatever 
means their prejudices or their ignorance may make necessary. 
Remember, we are servants ! Let not the servant be above 
doing what the Master did. And 0 ! if offences must come, 
how heavy will be the woe to that minister who shall have 
been himself the cause of any—who, by his life, or by any 
line of conduct, shall have made it harder for any disciple 
to bear the truth from his lips ! ”— Hinds's Visitation Sermon? 
p. 18. 


disc, hi.] Judas Iscariot . 345 

profess, and are believed, to be not only Christian, 
but preeminently Christian,—leaders—or zealous 
followers of those who are leaders—in what is 
emphatically called “ the religious world.” Then, 
when you are in fact “ suffering for righteousness’ 
sake,” instead of having the credit of this, you will 
be held up to reprobation, as ignorant of the Gospel, 
and an alien from evangelical truth; you will find 
yourself in a manner excommunicated, and bitterly 
reviled, by those who are nominally engaged in the 
same cause. You may be held forth to hatred and 
scorn as a traitor to your Master, precisely for 
refusing to betray Him ;—for refusing to abandon, 
at Man’s demand, what you feel to be your duty to 
Him. 

I have often thought how comparatively light 
must have been, to the first disciples, the hatred 
and scorn of the heathen , as compared with the 
execration and persecution heaped on them by the 
rulers of the synagogues ,—by the most eminent 
and most religiously zealous of their Jewish brethren , 
who worshipped in the same temple. But more 
trying still must have been the opposition, and 
calumny, and vexatious persecution which Paul 
had to encounter from rival Christian brethren, 


346 


On the Treason of [disc. hi. 

who “ preached Christ even out of envy and strife,” 
and laboured to “ add affliction to his bonds.” p If 
any such trial as this shall be deemed good for 
you by God’s providence, then indeed you will 
have need of all your vigilance to guard against 
being deceived by your own wishes; and of all 
your fortitude—that is, the fortitude which Christ 
Himself will supply to those who earnestly apply to 
Him,—to enable you to take up your “ cross and 
follow Him ” without which you “ cannot be his 
disciple.” 

I can hardly wish that any of you, my Chris¬ 
tian brethren, should be exposed to this fiery 
trial—this moral martyrdom. But if you should 
encounter it, and abide it faithfully, you will then 
be improved in character by the trial. If you 
remain, through Christ’s help, unintimidated and 
unprovoked,—untainted with error, and undis¬ 
gusted with truth, you will come out of the burn¬ 
ing fiery furnace, not only unhurt, but purified and 
strengthened. 

To enumerate the various modes in which the 
Christian, and more especially the Christian minister, 
may be tempted to betray his Minister ,— i. e. to 
p Phil. i. 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


347 


abandon the straight road of his duty to Christ, 
for the sake of some seeming advantage, or to 
escape some painful sacrifice,—would be to go 
through almost the whole of the Christian duties. 

But my object has been to point out by some 
general remarks, and by a few instances, how cer¬ 
tain we are in every age of Christianity to meet 
with offences—with stumbling-blocks in our Chris¬ 
tian path; and with what care, consequently, every 
Christian, and especially the Christian minister, 
must guard not only against being himself over¬ 
thrown by those he will meet with, but also against 
contributing to place any in the path of another. 
It is the more needful to be perpetually reminding 
ourselves of this, on account of that which our 
Lord so emphatically dwells on in the beginning 
of his precept: “ It must needs be that offences 
come •” “ It is impossible but that offences will 

come.” If He had held out the expectation that 
the trials and difficulties of the Christian course 
would ever, in this life, be done away—that the 
road would ever be cleared entirely of those “ rocks 
of offence,” it might then have been almost too 
obvious to need mentioning that a heavy condem¬ 
nation would await any one whose conduct should 


348 


On the Treason of 


[disc. nr. 


tend to prevent this happy result. But He warns 
his disciples, not to expect this, and yet to guard 
no less assiduously against having themselves any 
share in the evils which would undoubtedly take 
place.* 1 

Even this precept may seem to some, when stated 
generally, almost too self-evident to be so earnestly 
dwelt on. But when we come to practice, we shall 
find the application of the precept will be to some 
persons rather startling, and perhaps even scarcely 
intelligible. If, for instance, you, my Christian 
brethren, and especially my brethren in the Ministry, 
make those exertions in your Master’s cause which 
your duty to Him requires, you will, I suspect, 
hear many ask, with something of contemptuous 
wonder, “ How can you be so sanguine as to ex¬ 
pect to accomplish so and so ? You think to bring 
about such and such results; but you will not 
succeed : your efforts to prevent such and such 
evils are very well-meant, but they are vain; the 
mischief is inevitable&c. 

q “ I know,” says Paul, speaking to his own converts, “ that 
after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in, not sparing 
the flock; yea, even of your own selves shall men arise, speak¬ 
ing perverse [perverted] things, to draw away disciples after 
them.”' 


DISC. III.] 


Judas Iscariot. 


349 


Such language, I say, you will often hear from 
persons who proceed all along on the supposition 
that you are calculating the probabilities of events ; 
and that if these do not turn out according to your 
wishes, you will be surprised and mortified at find¬ 
ing that you had been labouring in vain. Let your 
reply be, that the events are in the hands of Provi¬ 
dence, but that it is for your efforts in discharging 
your own duty, that you are answerable ; and that 
so far from calculating on universal success in those, 
you have been warned that “ offences will come/’ 
You may add, that no event can be itself more 
certain and inevitable than was our Lord’s being 
betrayed into the hands of his enemies; yet this 
did not lighten the guilt of the traitor: and that 
the Prophet Ezekiel was commissioned to go to 
those who were described to him as a perverse 
people, and give them warning when they were ill- 
disposed to take warning : “ Thou shalt speak my 
words unto them, whether they will hear or whe¬ 
ther they will forbear: for they are a rebellious 

house. If thou warn not the sinner of 

his evil way, that wicked man shall die in his ini¬ 
quity, but his blood will I require at thy hands; 
but if thou warn the wicked man, and he turn not 



350 


On the Treason of [disc. iii. 

from his evil ways, that wicked man shall die in his 
iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.” 

May God grant to us, my brethren in the 
Ministry, such success in our labour in his cause, 
as may give us reason to rejoice over his flock 
which we are appointed to feed ! But while saying, 
with our lips, and in our conduct, “ Thy kingdom 
come,” we must remember to say also, “ Thy will 
be done !” I should be sorry to think that any one 
of you will never fail in any of his endeavours to 
do good. I say, “ I should be sorry to think this,” 
because it could only happen by his not using such 
endeavours as he ought. As long as any evil 
remains unremedied (and much there always will 
remain)—as long as any good remains undone (and 
much will be always wanting)—as long as any 
offence exists (and “ it is impossible but that 
offences will come”), our efforts should never cease 
or relax. The best minister will, indeed, we may 
humbly hope, be blest with much success; but 
never with all that he aims at. He only is exempt 
from failures, who makes no efforts. 

But we serve a Master—the only Master—who 
takes the effort alone for the deed ; wdio keeps the 
events in his own hands, and makes us answerable 


Judas Iscariot. 


351 


DISC. III.] 

for the endeavours, and not for the success of them. 
And He has promised that, as far as we are con¬ 
cerned, our labours, if sincere and assiduous, shall 
not have been in vain. 

“ Be not therefore weary of well doing; for in 
due season we shall reap if we faint not.” And 
“ when He, the chief Shepherd, shall appear,” 
may we be among the number of those “ faithful 
and wise servants whom their Lord when He 
cometh shall find watching.” 

“ Now to Him who is able to do exceeding 
abundantly above all that we ask or think— 
to God only-wise, be glory in the Church by 
Christ Jesus, throughout all ages ! Amen.” 


NOTES. 


Note A, p. 337. 

I am sensible that several important points, which 
have been slightly touched on in the foregoing pages, 
require a fuller development than the limits of a single 
sermon would admit of. I v/as obliged, therefore, to 
content myself with the hope, that on these points, I 
might suggest to the hearers (and now, to the reader) 
some topics and some hints, for their own researches 
and reflection in private. 

In particular, that most interesting and most important 
portion of sacred history, the account of our Lord’s 
betrayal, deserves a much fuller discussion than my 
space would allow. 

You will find, however, in Whitby, in Matthew 
Henry, and in many other commentators, ancient 
and modern, (to several of which Poole’s Synopsis 
will afford references,) interesting discussions of the 
principal questions pertaining to this portion of sacred 
history. 

One point, however, which has much perplexed 
commentators, and of which none, as far as I know, has 
given any satisfactory account, seems to me to be a dif¬ 
ficulty of their own raising. They are at a loss to 
reconcile Mark’s account of the prophecy of three 



Notes. 


353 


denials before the second cock-crowing, with that of the 
other three Evangelists who say, “ Before the cock crow ; n 
i. e . before the first cock-crowing. And again, assuming 
that there must have been neither less nor more than 
three denials, they find it impossible to reconcile the 
accounts which each Evangelist gives of the three, 
without attributing to some of them great inaccuracy in 
a point on which they had evidently bestowed great 
attention. 

But on comparing together all the four narratives, and 
assuming each to be literally true (though no one con¬ 
tains all the circumstances), the difficulty vanishes. 
Jesus apparently must have foretold (in reply to Peter’s 
confident professions), that he would deny Him before 
the second cock-crowing ; and that, not once, or twice, 
but not less than three times ; a prophecy which surely 
was not falsified if he denied Him ten times thrice. 
Peter persisting in his protestations, it is likely that 
Jesus repeated the prophecy, and extended it; foretelling 
that even before the first cock-crowing he would thrice 
deny Him. And each Evangelist records the fulfilment 
of the prophecy he had himself related, by describing 
three instances of denial which had come to his own 
knowledge. If any one of the four had related less 
than three, he would not have recorded the fulfilment 
of the prophecy. But it would have been unnecessary 
to have recorded more , how many soever may, in fact, 
have occurred, and may have been known to the 
writer. 

Another of the prevalent mistakes relative to this 


A A 


354 


Notes. 


portion of history, is to suppose that Peter was distin¬ 
guished from the other Apostles by self-confident pro¬ 
testations; in which all the rest joined (“likewise also 
said all the disciples ”); and, again, by his subsequent 
failure ; though “ all the disciples forsook their Master 
and fledescaping the denials of Peter only by not 
abiding the questions. But, in fact, Peter was dis¬ 
tinguished from them by being the last to fail, and the 
first to be recalled : according to our Lord’s prophecy 
concerning him : “ Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired 
to have you ” (all of you), “ but I have prayed for thee , 
that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, 
strengthen thy brethren.” 

I may observe here, that on this, and on several other 
points of sacred history, you will often find that the 
popular expositions are what have been adopted and 
retained, not on reflection, but from early habit. Some 
traditional explanation will often have become, from 
childhood, so blended in the mind with the text itself, 
as to leave no distinct idea as to what is, or what is not, 
expressly stated in Scripture. For example ; the tra¬ 
dition that Mary Magdalene had been, before her con¬ 
version, a woman of profligate life, (arising perhaps origin¬ 
ally from the mention in Luke viii. 2, of her having been 
delivered from demoniacal possession,) is so familiarised to 
many people’s minds, partly by pictures, and partly by 
the title often given to female penitentiaries, that you 
may sometimes find persons hardly aw T are that no 
such thing is anywhere stated in scripturewho have 
never thought of doubting it; and who never heard any 


Notes. 


355 


proof of it offered. 3 And something of the same kind 
takes place in respect of several other parts of sacred 

b 

And not only amongst the least instructed and hum¬ 
blest in station of your hearers, but also in what are 
called the educated classes, you will sometimes find per¬ 
sons so entirely unacquainted with the contents—and 
almost with the very existence—of books (some of them 
by the most celebrated of our own divines) not within 
the narrow circle of their own studies, that statements, 
expositions, and arguments which have been before 
the Christian world for ages, will be exclaimed against, 
not only as erroneous, but as strange and unheard of 
novelties . 

In the view which I have taken of the conduct of 
Judas, the reader will, I think, see more and more 
reason to concur, the more he examines and reflects 
on the subject. And as this is, I am convinced, the 
most correct explanation, so it is also the most in- 

, a Since the first publication of this remark, I have seen somewhere, in 
print, (I think it was a letter addressed to the Editor of some news¬ 
paper,) a denial of it, and an assertion that Mary Magdalene’s bad 
character is recorded in Scripture : the Scripture referred to being the 
heading in the table of contents of the chapters in our English 
Bible ! 

Of the popular error respecting Chapters and Yerses I was well 
aware : but this last instance of ignorance, in a person who could write 
grammatical English, I should hardly have believed. 

b See a passage in Discourse I. § 5, in which the popular notion is 
alluded to, of John’s having accompanied Peter when he followed Jesus 
to the High Priest’s house. 



356 


Notes. 


structive and profitable as a warning. I endeavoured 
accordingly so to express myself as to impress this 
on the hearers generally ; not merely the candidates 
for ordination, but the rest of that numerous and mixed 
congregation who attended the service. It was impos¬ 
sible however, (as I have above remarked,) to do justice 
to the subject within the limits of a single discourse. 
I would take the liberty of suggesting, therefore, to my 
younger brethren in the ministry, to call the attention 
of their hearers, in a series of discourses, to an examina¬ 
tion of all the particulars of this most interesting portion 
of Scripture history. 

And universally, as we ought, in the instruction 
bestowed on our people, to make the elucidation of 
Scripture our principal object; so, we should, especi¬ 
ally, lead them, gradually, to understand, and to study 
with interest and with attention, the whole—and not 
least the historical part, which is the basis on which the 
rest is built—of the New Testament. A plain reader, 
of no high pretensions in point of learning or ability, 
may thus be trained to find for himself, through divine 
help, more, and more profitable instruction, than 
could have been supplied to him by the most ingenious 
abstract disquisitions, or the most eloquent general 
exhortations. 


INDEX. 


Antinomianism —not popular when undisguised, Ess. i. § 3. 

Antiquity —attractions of, when combined with novelty, 
Note C to Ess. iii. 

Appeal to Scripture, mistakes respecting, Note B to Ess. iii. 

Authorized version of Scripture, Disc. i. § 5. 

Bacon —Lord, his rules applicable in theology, Ess. iii. § 5. 

Bible —division of, into chapters and verses, apt to lead to 
mistakes, Disc. i. § 1. 

Chapters — division into, apt to mislead, Disc. i. § 1. 

Christ .—To assume his authority is not the right imitation of 
Him, Ess. iii. §§ 1, 2; his claims of credence, whereon 
founded, Ess. iii. § 3; has forbidden the use of coercion 
in enforcing his religion, Ess. iii. §§ 6, 7, 8, and Note E; 
why despised as a Nazarene, Disc. ii .; believed at first 
to have in view a temporal kingdom, Disc. iii. 

Christianity —not now supported by blind reverence, Ess. i. 
§ 1; its utility to society not to be put forward as the 
leading argument for its truth, Note A to Disc. i. 

Church —universal, supposed decisions of, Note A to Ess. iii. 

Classification of men, as followers of this or of that leader, 
apt to be made on wrong grounds, Pref. 

Coercion —in religious matters, Note E to Ess. iii. 

Confession— general, no proof of humility, Ess. i. § 6. 


358 


Index. 


Cromwell —his religious confidence, Ess. i. § 6. 

Dictionary —Theological, Eden’s, referred to, Pref. and 
Disc. i. § 5. 

Divisions —within the Church, danger of, Note C to Ess. ii. 

Eden — his Theological Dictionary referred to, Pref. and 
Disc. i. § 5. 

Edinburgh Review —article in, coincident with Hume, NoteB 
to Ess. ii. 

Education— popular, when dangerous to Christianity, Ess. ii. 
§2. 

Error —liability to, of Churches and Councils, Ess. iii. § 5. 

Evangelical —equivalent, properly, to “ Christian,” Note C 
to Ess. ii.; Alliance, character of, Note C to Ess. ii. *- 

Evidences — of Christianity, Ess. ii. § 2, Disc. i. § 3, and 
Note A. 

Faith —Christian, character of, Ess. ii. § 2, and Ess. iii. § 2. 

Fathers —ancient, laid no claim to infallibility, Ess. iii. § 4. 

Gospel —on what ground embraced by first converts, Ess. iii. 
§3. 

Hinds —on “the Authorized Version,” and on “the Three 
Temples,” Disc. i. § 5. 

Hume— agreement of, with some Christian writers, Ess. ii. 
Note B. 

Humility —Christian, mistakes relative to, Ess. i. §§ 7, 8, 9. 

Infallibility —claim to, Ess. iii. § 4 ; virtually claimed by 
some who in words disclaim it, Note B to Ess. iii. 

Judgment —private,' unavoidable necessity of, Ess. iii. § 4, 
and Note C. 

Julian —the Emperor, instance of, Disc. iii. 

Justification —sought for through ceremonial observances, 
Ess. i. § 4. 

Knox —on the word Sucaioauvq, Ess. i. § 4, Note. 


Index. 359 

Law —often used to signify the ceremonial portion of the 
Levitical Law, Ess. i. § 4. 

Magdalene —common mistake respecting, Note A to Disc. iii. 

Magistrate —civil, duty of, Note F to Ess. iii. 

Mahomet —religion of, more consistent with secular coercion 
than the Gospel, Note E to Ess. iii. 

Mahometans —sects of, may be sincere as to the points of 
difference between them, without believing Mahomet’s 
divine mission, Note A. Disc. i. 

Man —proneness of, to separate religion from morality, 
Ess. i. § 2. 

Milman —Bampton Lectures of, cited, Note to Disc. iii. 

Ministers — Christian, duties of, Ess. ii. §§ 1 , 2 ; should give 
no offence, &c. Disc. iii. 

Monopoly —of civil rights, Note F to Ess. iii. 

Parents —our first, mistake as to their moral condition, 
Ess. i. § 6. 

Party —what it consists in, Ess. ii. §§ 2, 3, 4. 

Paul. —What he means when he speaks of those who sought 
justification through the Law, Ess. i. § 4; is not speaking 
of himself in ch. vii. of Romans, Disc. i. § 1; character of, 
when unconverted, and converted, Ess. iii. § 7. 

People —instruction of, in evidences, Ess. ii. § 2. 

Perfection —pretension to, Ess. i. § 6. 

Persecution— advocates of, in the cause of Christianity, 
Ess. iii. § 7; what is understood by it, Note E to Ess. iii. 

Powell— Professor, referred to, Pref. 

Priestcraft —declaimers against, Disc. i. § 2. 

Protestants ) may be sincere as to the points of dif- 

Roman Catholics j ference between themselves and their 
opponents, without being believers in the truth of 
Christianity, Note A to Disc. i. 


360 


Index. 


Reason —declaimers against, Ess. i. § 9. 

Religion —without virtue, Ess. i. § 2. 

Revelation— -analogous to Nature, Ess. iii. § 5. 

Scriptures —not illustrated by some technical commentators, 
Ess. i. § 4; standard of, what meant by, Note B to Ess. iii.; 
preparation for the study of, Disc. i. § 4 ; authorized 
version of, Disc. i. § 5. 

Unity —Christian, what, Note A to Ess. iii. 

Universal Church—supposed claims of, Note A to Ess. iii. 
Wilberforce —on popular instruction in evidences, Note A to 
Ess. ii. 

Works —good, Ess. i. 5 3. 


THE END. 


R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD-STREET-HILL. 





































' 





























































































. 






































































































































































































- 






































































































/ 

■■ 
























































































